February 8, 2012
-
Gay Marriage
A federal appeals panel ruled the gay marriage ban in California unconstitutional. Here is the link: Link
Should gays be allowed to marry?
A federal appeals panel ruled the gay marriage ban in California unconstitutional. Here is the link: Link
Should gays be allowed to marry?
Comments (155)
Why not?
should jerks or catholics? should women or Native Americans? Sure, everyone should get the right to get married…I’d say stupid people/conservatives should have some sort breeding ban so they stop spreading LMAO but they too should be allowed to marry, just don’t have kids
absolutely.
That court has just disenfranchised millions of voters. The real question is, “How can a court invalidate the will of the people?” The branches of government are checks on each other not the people. That’s because the People are the sovereign power and no court in the land has the power to invalidate their will.
Yes.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - but no people have the right to violate the rights of others. Now I’m not old enough to know what it was like when straight marriage became legal, but something tells me there was not a vote held to approve the marriages. Furthermore, while I’m certainly about the furthest thing from a legal historian, I don’t believe there was ever a public vote held on if divorce should be made legal. And in addition, while the people voted against gay marriage at the time the vote was held, a slim majority of people in the United States now favor gay marriage.
@heckels - Homosexuality isn’t a right. And HHS just violated the 1st Amendment, which is a right, by ordering religious organizations to go against their beliefs. You can’t have it both ways.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - What human is to say what is right and what is wrong? If they made a law for everything that is deemed wrong by a God or religious organization, than there would be a long list of things that would be illegal such as gambling, drinking, divorce, pre marital sex, and many other things. Also, giving other people rights does not take away rights from other or organizations. It is fairly clear that being against gay marriage is bigotry, plain and simple.
Fucking faggots!
Don’t want a gay marriage? don’t get one. Don’t want to be discriminated? don’t discriminate anyone else. I don’t understand why people always want to inflict their morals on anyone else so rigidly, when it doesn’t even affect them.
Even if one does (so arrogantly) believe they know what’s right and wrong in other people’s private lives, this is not a reason for the LAW to be so illiberal there. But I guess that’s just me.
Yes.
I don’t know why not. I want a new amendment declaring that consenting adults who love each other should have the right to be recognized by the state as a legally joined couple.
@leaflesstree - Ditto.
@heckels - Human rights are based on our human nature, not our sexual preference. Basing rights on sexual preference would mean that rights would have to be given to every group who claimed a different sexual preference.
Since there could be an infinite number of sexual preferences the notion of rights would become meaningless. If marriage is a right based on sexual preference, than anyone with any sexual preference whatsoever would then have the right to be married. That includes marriage between man and man, woman and woman or man and spoon.
There is nothing superior about homosexuality as a sexual preference. And there is nothing about the definition of “consent” that can’t be redefined just like you wish to redefine marriage.
The US Constitution is the law of the land here in America. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence define rights and the structure and limits on government. Human rights must be endowed by our Creator since all men are created equal and no individual man or group of men has the authority to endow rights to beings who are their equal.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Even though I do not agree with any ban on gay marriage, I was questioning how a court could rule something unconstitutional when the majority of the voters voted for the ban.
@unflii - It’s tyranny pure and simple. The system of checks and balances applies to each branch checking and balancing each other. If the power truly resides with the people, a federal court has no jurisdiction over the sovereigns (We the People) who truly rule. That is the essence of government by representation.
Of course. This seems like the dumbest question ever.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Listen it’s very simple. Marriage is an act between two consenting adults. Doesn’t matter what their gender is. The United States is a democratic republic. Which means that we elect officials that we feel will best represent our point of view. They don’t have to follow our orders. That’s not the way it works. But if they want to get reelected they need to do what they feel is best for the people.
Gay marriage should be legal. There is no justifiable reason it shouldn’t be.
Everyone should be able to marry whom they love, race, sex, color, creed, and orientation regardless. Point blank, that’s it, now everyone shut the fuck up and learn to tolerate it.
@roxics - Californians lawfully voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. And they were disenfranchised not by elected representatives, but by an unaccountable court that has no Constitutional power to invalidate the will of the people. A federal court may only check the executive or legislative branch of government. The vote is the will of the People. No branch of government may invalidate the will of the people. Otherwise it’s raw tyranny and our vote means nothing.
Our constitutional form of government can’t be destroyed just because you insist on defining marriage your own way. That’s not how a free society works. Arbitrarily imposing your definition of marriage on the entire populace is raw tyranny.
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - A vote was taken in California. That’s how things are decided in a free society.
Perhaps marriage shouldn’t be a thing of legality at all. Perhaps it should just be two adults agreeing to be committed to each other & we keep marriages to a private ceremony where Uncle Sam & Mr. President & all his cronies stay out of it?
I don’t know. I believe marriage is extremely important. Yet it seems people either take it too lightly or they tire or it too quickly or they completely disrespect it altogether. So what’s the point in the whole legal aspect of it? You shouldn’t have to be married to have someone you care about visit you in the hospital.
What if someone was a widow(er) and had no nearby family. Would the hospital deny that person’s best friend entrance simply because they’re friends & not family? Ridiculous.
So I think a lot of things need to change. I disagree with homosexual relationships, but at the same time – if God gives us the freedom to choose Him or reject Him, who am I to say that someone has NO choice in who they live with?
Yes, I believe gay people should get married if they choose to.
Yep.
Taking the rights away from ANY human being, takes rights away from us ALL!!!!
live and let live!!!my hell!!! In this day and age, I can NOT believe this is still a debate/law!!!!
If we can stand strong for the red, white and blue…….then we should be colorful enough to love and accept the rainbow too!
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - People tend to forget that if your vote violates the Constitution, it will be repealed no matter what. Just because it is what the people say doesn’t mean that it can ignore the Constitution.
It is impossible just by looking at people when they marry or in any other situation to know for sure if they are the gender they seem to be. So that is why these laws dont make much sense to me at least, unless they’d pass a law that would give a physical exam to anyone that get legally married . So they would know for sure if the person is 100% male or female. But that would be a terrible invasion, the same invasion that keep people from marrying into the same gender.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Well I hate to say it, but the majority aren’t always right. If that were the case, our society would never have evolved at all. That’s why we live in a republic and not a true democracy. Because true democracies are mob rule. One of the purposes of our government is to protect the minority against the majority so that they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like the rest of us. It’s a delicate balance we must play. At some points in history we must challenge the status quo. General rule of thumb is, if it doesn’t hurt someone else it should be fair game. With that said, how does gay marriage hurt someone else?
Marriage is not spoken of in the constitution, and it therefore should not be relevant to the government. Keep it in archaic traditions where it belongs.
DEAR GOVERNMENT: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
LOVE, A VERY RELUCTANT TAXPAYER.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - ……and a free society can’t decide that everyone should be able to marry whomever they wish? Really? You sound brainwashed.
@Mertzarella - This is brilliant. You are my friend.
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - Not brainwashed, just stupid.
@DrummingMediocrity - LOL! Would stupid be worse than brainwashed?
@roxics - It makes God cry, obviously. And we know this because God tells us, duh.
@locomotiv - Very insightful comment, Grandma Nicki! I likey. Wish I were as smart as u.
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - Yes. Stupid=Intrinsic deficit. Brainwashed=acquired (and thereby possibly reversible) deficit. He shouldn’t be allowed to speak. But he couldn’t understand when Jesus told him that his speaking (/typing) privileges were on probation. :
Of course! And people need to stop trying to take away the rights of others just because they don’t agree with the lifestyle choices. (Same goes for abortion.)
Gays are citizens, correct? And we’re assuming that the homosexuals wanting to be married are at least 18 years of age. Why the fuck should we care if these US CITIZENS want to get married? We let Jews and Muslims come into our country and get married. And aren’t we forgetting the whole “separation of church and state” thing? People make absolutely no sense, I swear.
Here’s what I think. I think we should eliminate marriage totally and completely. Then, all of the straight conservative types will have nothing to bitch about.
@roxics - <3
Sure thing.
Absolutely.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. It is the “will of the people” so long as it does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees all American people certain fundamental rights. Now, according to Loving vs. Virginia in 1969, marriage is a fundamental right and therefore cannot be denied to homosexuals just because some religious people think it’s a sin.
yes of course always!
@Melissa___Dawn - In our Constitutional republic each branch of government can only check another branch of government. Power lies with the people. Government cannot check the will of the people. The purpose of the government is to implement the will of the people. No court can disenfranchise the people. The court can only check one of the two other branches of government.
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - Yes. That idea has always been upheld by every court – until now. The people can determine the mores of their community. And homosexual marriage is a moral issue if ever there was one.
@Xbeautifully_broken_downX - We aren’t bitching about marriage. That’s a point we settle through the democratic process. We are bitching at the raw power of government nullifying a lawful election. Our framers placed the power in the hands of the people. And they checked that power by separating the people from government. The people cannot touch the government. All they can do is elect people to represent them. So when a court nullifies a vote it is nullifying the American Republic and creating a tyranny where the power rests in government.
That should concern everyone.
@roxics - The majority being always right has never been a requirement of the Constitution. Again, that’s an arbitrary requirement that you are imposing and creating yourself. It isn’t part of government. Never has been.
But if a vote is taken lawfully, it is the purpose and function of government to implement the will of the people. No branch of government may negate the will of the people. Our government was set up so power was placed with the people, not the government. The check on “people power” is that the people are outside of government and can only act on the government at election time. If elections are nullified then the power of the people is nullified and we live in tyranny.
And I’ve been saying all along that gay rights is about sacking everyone’s rights. And you are proving that point exactly. You want to void the will of the people and impose your will by the raw power of government.
@laytexduckie - The vote in California did not violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. And I explained in a previous comment how rights cannot be based on sexual preference. And every court in the land has always upheld the right of any community to establish its own moral standards – until now.
Yes
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - No one said that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (I don’t really know what you mean about homosexuality being “superior”). They should just be considered equal. And I think most people who support gay marriage would be with me in saying that marriage should be about two people who are sexually attracted to each other and who are in love (therefore excluding polygamy, or marriage to objects and/or animals). Maybe sexual preference is not an explicitly delineated right, but I shudder to think that the government should have any control over who I am sexually attracted to. We all have the right to pursue happiness, and how can we truly be happy if we’re not permitted to be who we are?
@TheyCallHerEcho88 - Being “permitted to be who we are” is not a viable claim to the right to pursue happiness. It would permit mass murderers, sadists, child molesters to “be who they are”. This demonstrates that your argument is based on your view that homosexuality is superior.
Further, the traditional definition of marriage does nothing to keep two gay people from loving each other. It’s just that once marriage is redefined for homosexuals it must be redefined for every possible sexual preference. Any pro-gay arguments like “consent” can be surmounted by simply redefining the word just like you folks wish to redefine the word, marriage.
Yes. At the moment I am with a male, but I also like females. I think that if the person I decide to be with for the rest of my life is the same sex as me that I should be able to marry said person. Love is love.
@RazielV - Would you say the same thing if it were 2 females that wanted to be married or would you just ask to watch?
no lol
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Nope, but it’s been brought up before in different circumstances. No by yourself, but the “straight conservative” types I was referring to, bring up the institution of marriage and make it exclusive. Obviously you and I will have to agree to disagree as we have in previous conversations, but I will say this and then leave this whole debate alone:
I would argue the following: In the South, before the civil war, the majority of the population would have voted to keep the institution of slavery going. How about women’s rights to vote? I believe that particular Amendment was pushed through the House with 1 vote to secure the majority.
This argument you are bringing up is as old as our country is–whether or not the courts have the authority to override the majority, or label something as unconstitutional…in the same way that about 90% of the population would have argued that black men and women didn’t deserve to be free, and that women were “easily influenced” and were unfit to vote, well…as someone else said: the majority doesn’t always get it right. The courts don’t always get it right, either, but on this one, well….I’m pretty sure you can figure out where I stand on the issue.
Good day.
@Xbeautifully_broken_downX - The Supreme Court sanctioned slavery through such ruling as Dred Scott.. And the Supreme Court sanctioned the abortion holocaust in Roe V Wade. There is nothing special about the Supreme Court. The issue of slavery was settled when Abraham Lincoln, the elected President of the United States decided to go to war against the South.
Where you stand is, as long as the tyranny is going your way, it’s okay. But one day it won’t and you will find that you are just like the rest of us: enslaved by a tyrannical government.
Yes, why not?!
im amazed this is still debatable. it seems not to long ago that different color people were not allowed to marry. and these same discussion were being held. if we changed gay marriage to interracial marriage i bet we wouldnt know the difference. people to need stop living in caves and realize if two people love each other then no one should stand between them. and this is coming from someone who doesnt agree with being gay due to my religion. but i do not believe we should throw the first stone when none of us are without sin. *END RANT*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI&feature=related
^Louis CK says it best in those videos:
“‘Don’t get married!’ Well you don’t have to go to the wedding. You don’t have to buy them anything. It doesn’t matter. And so then some people will be like “well then, a guy will try to marry his dog”, and I say good, I fuckin’ hope he blows his dog. Who gives a shit? It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have any effect on your life, so why the fuck do you care?”
@Xbeautifully_broken_downX - @heckels - Don’t bother talking to that guy. He’s a brainwashed bigot, and his views are quite outdated, to put it nicely.
Plus, he’s an identity thief.
http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/photos/d8dad276607559/#filmstriptitle
http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/photos/d0289275619814/#filmstriptitle
http://celestial-teapot.xanga.com/739127035/lobornlyte-is-a-man-and-i-can-prove-it/
http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/749223115/i-had-a-glimmer-of-hope/
He used to go by the username of Lobornlytesthoughtpalace. The xanga team shut him down for violations of the terms of use. That should tell you something.
A better question: why does anybody care if the trolls at the county courthouse recognize your relationship?
Yes, there is no reason to deny equal rights to a group of people due to other people’s bigotry.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - The **Will of the People** is meaningless in an era when that Will is almost entirely shaped by shady special interest groups and corporate stooges trying to make us all the most manageable, predictable, subservient Sheeple possible. I agree completely with your point that courts should never be able to override a democratic vote–but that being said, Americans ought to take a much closer look at who is shaping the voters of tomorrow, and for what purpose. The court voted to repeal prop 8, a bill which passed largely due to a huge propaganda campaign funded by wealthy Mormons and other religious groups. Prior to this propaganda campaign, voters were accepting (not largely supportive, but accepting) of gay marraige in California. In reality, the court did not overturn a true vote at all; rather, it overturned a bit of carnival psychology, idiot-baiting jingles, and temporary programming that were long since bought and paid for.
@MyTwoCentss - Doesnt’ the legality come into play when you consider taxes and benefits? A gay partner wouldn’t get his partner’s work benefits or Social Security.
@autumn_cannibal76 - The will of the people is what it is. And money is speech. Tyranny is a result of ignorance not a solution to it.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - I know that, thanks for telling me like I’m 5 years old. My point is, we can be a free society if we lift and break all these barriers which separate us—–racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. If gay marriage is made legal EVERYWHERE and people who are against it just open their minds to see that a free society is one where people can do as they wish, as long as it doesn’t hurt others, then we are truly free and moving forward.
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - EXACTLY!
People think I am gay alot of times, which I am not. I just completely support the idea of being able to marry whoever (people, obviously.. Dont want the homophobs to say something like “well then I should marry my toaster” as if a toaster and a gay person are somehow alike..) they want to! There are weddings that aren’t religious at all, which is generally why people dont like gay marriages. I am not religious, and when me and my BF get married, we aren’t having a religious ceremony.
This is kind of the same thing as abortion.. People need to stay out of other peoples business and stop trying to run peoples lives for them! People should be able to get married to whoever they LOVE.
@bbanmen420 - *high five* Much love
I get mistaken for a lesbian too…..people are only half right nowadays 
@x_damaged_yet_unbroken_x - Singing Kumbaya won’t change human nature. You are expressing the most dangerous and blood soaked idea in human history: utopianism.
The human race will always be a mess. And the greatest hope against that mess is the United States of America as founded.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Yes, tryanny (of the courts) is certainly not a solution to ignorance any more starvation is a solution to obesity. But money being speech…that was an, um, er, Supreme Court decision, not a vote, wasn’t it…? If things like lobbying and bigwig campaign contributions were ever made truly public, I imagine the public would vote down the buying and selling of votes and the annoying, fear-based ads like the ones used in support of prop 8. A society that can be steered by fear is incapable of being a free democracy. You said something that (I think anyway) was very wise earlier: that it’s easy to support tyranny when it’s going your way. The same is true of money being speech.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - But there is an amendment in the Constitution that states that you cannot violate civil and equal rights. And that is what Prop 8 does; it bars homosexuals the right to get married based on discrimination.
Yes.
The way I see it is there not stopping anything by saying no. The are going to love eachother anyway. It’s been that way for thousands of years and no one is any less gay today:)
I think the bigger question in this case is how the h3ll is one judge able to counter a majority of Cal voters? How many times is Prop 8 going to go back and forth?
Sick of this sh*t.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - When the people are too stupid to understand that they don’t get to exert their will in a way that violates the rights of others, their will can and should be violated.
@Maverick83 - I’ve already explained that. The only people who had their rights violated were the voters of California. There is nothing about homosexuality or any other sexual preference that confers rights.
@laytexduckie - Sexual preference doesn’t confer any rights. Marriage is not a right. Voting, however, is a right. The California voters are the ones who had their rights violated.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Equality is a right.
@Maverick83 - No it isn’t. Equality is a quality of nature. It is not a right.
Although it seems like a stupid question, I get why it’s being asked.. how the heck can a court overrule a vote? Did you guys vote?? I don’t get why people, in this case straight people, need to force their old-fashioned and myopic views on everyone else. It’s supposed to be a free country.. UK is awesome
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Preference means that you have the right to choose. Sexual orientation is not a preference; it is a natural occurrence in the human body that entails whether you are attracted to the opposite or same sex. Much like race, people do not simply choose their ethnicity once they are born. Who are we to say that someone can’t get married because of their sexual orientation? That is a form of discrimination, which violates the civil rights conduct.
@laytexduckie - Now you are descending into the muck of word games. There is no right to homosexuality or right to marry.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Yes, in this country, it is a right.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - What word games? It’s the same principle where anyone of any race should be allowed to marry. What makes it right to say that two consenting adults of the same sex are not allowed to marry each other? It doesn’t make it right. Easily put, it’s discrimination since people are not “comfortable” with someone else’s sexual orientation, much like in the 50s and 60s when people weren’t comfortable with the color of someone’s skin, and think it’s okay to just strip their civil rights because of that. Regardless if some is homosexual or not, they are all human beings/citizens of the United States and are entitled to the same rights/opportunities as any other United States citizen. That is the bottom line.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - You’re right. It’s unconstitutional to change a law that the majority voted for themselves, just because you don’t like what the majority voted for.
Yes, OF COURSE
@Jenny_Wren - Xanga’s gay rights advocates are demonstrating that they don’t give a hoot about human rights, liberty or the power of the people to shape the society they live in through a lawful republican form of government. They only accept electoral results that agree with their beliefs. And they will have their way even if they have to crush the life out of the American Republic.
Crushing freedom and human rights is the objective of the gay rights agenda. It has nothing to do with marriage or living together well in a free society.
Of course gay marriage should be legal. It doesn’t mean that a church or any other religious institution MUST marry gay couples. They still have the right to refuse if it violates that particular religion’s beliefs – for example, the Catholic church I attend will not marry a couple unless at least one of them is Catholic, a member of the church, and proves they’ve attended church regularly by handing in envelopes. Churches can set whatever rules they see fit regarding who they will marry. However, some churches, such as Universal Unitarian churches, will happily marry gay couples, and should have the right to do so.
Also, the people whining about how the majority voted FOR Prop 8, need to look up “tyranny of the majority.” It isn’t exactly fair to oppress a minority or individual just because the majority, who is NOT affected by the oppression (kind of like how all the straight people that voted for Prop 8 won’t be affected by gay marriage at all), is in favor of it.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - @Jenny_Wren - Again…when what the majority voted for is a discriminatory law, and therefore unconstitutional in the first place, the only thing that majority is being deprived of by the reversal of that law, is its freedom to oppress the minority. That the majority is not entitled to that freedom has been well established by the struggle for equality of every minority group throughout this nation’s history. We should all know better, by now, and it is positively astonishing that some of us don’t seem to. What’s hard to understand about this?
of course not! It’ll be animals and shoes, next.
@Maverick83 - All laws are discriminatory is some way or other. All morality is discriminatory. All standards are discriminatory. Therefore it is well within the rights of the people to set the standards, morality and regulations that promote the common welfare.
One of the great flaws of progressivism is it’s rejection of morals and standards. A civilization can only decline and dissolve without morals and standards.
Once again judicial activism rears its ugly head.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Sure, if we’re going to get philosophical about it, all laws do discriminate, but they’re supposed to discriminate against behavior that poses a clear threat to the rights and well being of others. Gay marriage doesn’t interefere with anyone’s rights or well being. Making it illegal does.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - According to the supreme court in Loving vs. Virginia in 1969 marriage IS a fundamental right, which means you cannot discriminate against an entire minority group of people based on your religious beliefs.
marriage yes
adoption no
@Melissa___Dawn - Loving vs Virginia demonstrates my point exactly. Marriage isn’t a right. Marriage is defined by law as the union of man and woman, and must be applied regardless of race. The ruling was based on human rights, not sexual preference. Your comment is an example of how gay rights advocates demand that everyone accept their diktat that marriage is a right.
Marriage is not a right.
@Maverick83 - Of course I’m being philosophical. Philosophy is the language of ideas. It’s how human beings express ideas and systems of ideas coherently. The great problem here is that gay rights advocates hate philosophy, hate law and hate the US Constitution. And that’s why you folks don’t accept election results unless they go your way.
The way you go about things is purely totalitarian. You use any means at hand to force your ideas down everyone’s throats. If you folks are allowed to invalidate lawful election results than we are living in a tyranny and we are all slaves ruled by the brute force of government.
Should I be allowed to married? I’m already married, thank you. Those who would deny (or, worse, take away) marriage rights are on the wrong end of history, morality, and social justice. If your religion tells you that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But keep your beliefs out of my life!
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Reductio ad absurdum….you should know better than that, I would think?
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - “Loving vs Virginia demonstrates my point exactly. Marriage isn’t a right. Marriage is defined by law as the union of man and woman…”
Neither Loving v. Virginia nor the Courts have ever made such proclaimations. What Loving actually did was announce marriage as a fundamental, Constitutionally protected right.
As a fundamental right, before it could be denied to any minority group, the state (in this case, CA) first need to demonstrate a rational basis. And in Prop 8, there was none.
@NotWhereIThought - I’m not employing any technique other than stating my case based on what the US Constitution means, what human rights actually are. And I am clarifying the pernicious and totalitarian nature of gay rights advocacy based on the comments addressed to me.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - “…And that’s why you folks don’t accept election results unless they go your way.”
Listen up, bub.
We don’t exist in a pure democracy. There is a bit of document known as the United States Constitution– and it circumscribes the acceptable boundaries of our democratic mechanisms. Any law that violates Constituionally protected rights or processes is invalidated.
You ought to try reading the text of the 14th Amendment. There, you’d find the Equal Protection clause. It was on this basis that the 9th Circuit Court overturned Proposition 8.
@christao408 - That isn’t the point here. The point is that you want the entire Western Civilization to redefine itself based on your particular set of values. If this were a case of just you loving and making a life with someone, there would be no problem. But a US federal court has disenfranchised the sovereign people of the state of California. Under the US Constitution that is not permitted. Under the US Constitution what the court did is specifically NOT permitted.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - “. The point is that you want the entire Western Civilization to redefine itself based on your particular set of values.”
That’s an irrelevent point. Judeo-Christian values, in and of itself, is not a guiding principle in American Jurisprudence.
What matter is what the law says. What matter is what the Constitution intends. Marriage is a fundamental right and it may not be irrationally discriminated against any group– minority or otherwise.
“But a US federal court has disenfranchised the sovereign people of the state of California.”
Just as Loving v. Virignia disenfranchised the soverign people of Virignia or Brown v. Board of Education disenfranchised the soverign people of Kansas.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - “Under the US Constitution that is not permitted.”
Yes it is. Article III motherfucker.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - ” No branch of the government my disenfranchise the people.”
Californias aren’t being disenchranchised. They may still vote and hold elections.
What the Courts may do, however, is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
“The vote is how the people express the power of self rule.”
There are bounds to democracy. Laws may not violate the first amendment– and supporess free speech. Nor the second– and take away our guns. In the case of Proposition 8, Californian citiziens breached the Fourteenth Amendment.
Marriage isn’t like it used to be. I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me that I love somebody.
@sometimestheystaydead - No branch of the government may disenfranchise the people. Each branch of government may only check another branch of government. The vote is how the people express the power of self rule. The check on the power of the people is that they can only affect the government at election time.
No branch of government is granted power by the US Constitution to invalidate the vote of the people.
@Jenny_Wren - “… It’s unconstitutional to change a law that the majority voted for themselves, just because you don’t like what the majority voted for.”
It must be hard– living life as a fucking idiot.
The very role of the Supreme Court is to check unconstitutional laws. The citiziens of any state aren’t allowed to violate the bill of rights or any other constitutionally protected rights the moment they muster a majority.
Marriage is a fundamental right. Minority groups may not be irrationally discriminated against. On both counts, the majority of Californians have violated the United States Constitution.
@blonde_apocalypse - “A better question: why does anybody care if the trolls at the county courthouse recognize your relationship?”
Because discrimination, even in name early, preniciously undermines dignity in the most basic sense. Seperate is not equal.
@sometimestheystaydead - Your understanding of the US Constitution and your rudeness are typical of leftist progressives. You are not using the American (ie the Framers’ view) view of the US Constitution. I have stated clearly for you how the US Constitution designed the separation of powers. The people are not subject to being checked by a branch of government. The federal courts have constitutional authority over laws enacted by the Congress only.
A situation where a courts invalidates a vote taken by the people of a state, means that the federal government has power over the people and of the states. And that is exactly what the US Constitution was created to stop.
@sometimestheystaydead - Sorry, but you are incorrect. The federal courts can only check the executive and legislative branches. The vote of the people is a sovereign expression of their God-given right to self rule. And the US Constitution prohibits the government from tampering with that.
@sometimestheystaydead - The Obama Administration violated the 1st Amendment with it’s HHS diktat imposing its rule over all religions in the United States. Your silence with regard to that shows that you have no real interest in the rule of law as set for by the US Constitution.
@sometimestheystaydead - There is nothing in Article III of the US Constitution that allows the courts to invalidate an election held by the people of a state. As a matter of fact, states are well within their rights to create their own laws. You are predicating your reasoning on the bogus claims that being gay is a civil right and that marriage is a civil right.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - ” You are not using the American (ie the Framers’ view) view of the US Constitution.”
Bigotry and ignorance is usually time-consuming to undermine. You’re special. You make it easy.
Several responses:
(1) No. Judiacial review (the Supreme Court being able to overturn acts of congress) was established following Marbury v. Madison (1803). This was within the lifetimes of the founding fathers. If you squint hard, you may even find a familiar name involved in that case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(2) Not shit, you fucking idiot. The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified after the American Civil War. If you thought about it, you’d realize that 1868 was definately outside the lifetime of the “Framers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(3) There is clear precedence for the Supreme Court to overturn popular mandates. In Romer v. Evans, the Rehnquist Court overturned a bigotted Colorodo state initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
” I have stated clearly for you how the US Constitution designed the separation of powers. “
Indeed– but along with seperation of powers is checks and balances. And it is the role of SCOTUS to check unconstituional legislation and acts of the presidency.
“Such a situation means that the government has power over the people. And that is exactly what the US Constitution was created to stop.”
Nope. Since the time of Adams (the first Adams), the role of the Supreme Court was to strike down unconstituional acts of the legislative branch. Popular initiatives fall under the “law-making” of the legislative.
@sometimestheystaydead - Cursing, copying and pasting is only you proclaiming yourself the loser.
You’re simply a leftist whose intent is to destroy the meaning of the US Constitution and install fascist tyranny in the United States. What you can’t get legitimately you will impose through judicial and executive fiat and what you can’t reason you will try to destroy with Brown Shirt bullying and character assassination.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - “Cursing, copying and pasting is only you proclaiming yourself the loser.”
I’m sorry. I get myself carried away at the sight of weak arguments. If it makes me a loser– I hope it’d be a motherfucking awesome one.
As to copy/pasting– that charge is off the mark. I typed out, off the top of my head, my own argumentation. The links are for your reference.
“You’re simply a leftist whose intent is to destroy the meaning of the US Constitution and install fascist tyranny…”
If you had any understanding of the matter, you’d see that I’m a centerist interested in the preservation of the fundamental protections of our United States Constitution.
Marriage is a fundamental right– one deserving of respect and protection– regardless of whether you’re Christian, black, or gay.
“What you can’t get legitimately you will steal through judicial fiat…”
lol.
You mean through the conservative Rehinquist Court? Both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Evans mustered anti-discriminatory majority opinions on a right-leaning bench.
It’s not “judicial fiat” only because you disagree with the Constitution, my friend.
@sometimestheystaydead - Popular initiative cannot by nature be part of the legislative branch. Their purpose is to provide the people recourse against corrupt government. Giving corrupt government jurisdiction over the very means by which the people may protect itself is completely irrational.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - ” Popular initiative cannot by nature be part of the legislative branch. “
Popular initiatives make law. And that, by definition, makes it legislative.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - True dat.
You’re a bit too old for popular slang, bud.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - I think you may have overlooked it, but here it is convinently linked:
http://thetheologianscafe.xanga.com/758899543/gay-marriage/?page=5&jump=1524406524#1524406524
I’ve demolished your position 3-times over If you have the time, I’d like to see a substantive reply. It’s no fun when you, intellectually, roll over dead.
I have http://www.iblogporn.com/baoconggen111980/
I have http://www.iblogporn.com/qiaoshiyun11197470/
I have http://www.iblogporn.com/gainingnu51972/
@sometimestheystaydead - Last a checked, it is still debated whether or not marriage should remain between a man and a woman, and there has been no hard and fast change to the constitution that suddenly has deemed a right for anyone outside that description. People are trying to say that it should be. But there is nothing in the Constitution that would uphold that decision.
…You are interpreting the Constitution how you see fit, to override the majority. There is nothing explicit in the Constitution, at the moment, that would back you up on that.
Notice, I did not name call. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy.
@Jenny_Wren - “…You are interpreting the Constitution how you see fit, to override the majority…”
I don’t interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court does. The precedences and interpretations laid by the Supreme Court clearly points to the non-constitutionality of California’s proposition.
Morever, you fundamentally erred in your original argument. It is the very role of the Supreme Court to override majorities when they are unconstitutional. This role holds regardless of whether the law sprung through representative or direct democracy.
“There is nothing explicit in the Constitution, at the moment, that would back you up on that.”
Yes there are:
(1) The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process
(2) The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause
.
.
In Loving v. Virignia, (1), established marriage as a fundamental right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
(1) was further used in Lawrence v. Texas to protect gays and lesbians from discriminitive legislation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
(2) protectsion any minority group from invidious discrimination. (2) was used precisely to strike down an anti-gay state proposition in Romer v. Evans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
.
Supreme Court precedence is clear. Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
@Maverick83 - I don’t think it can be considered, on national level, something that is unconstitional, because it is only discriminatory in that is follows the definition of marriage accepted for thousands upon thousands of years. Yes, it is discriminatory–in the sense that it limits marriage to be between a man and a woman. But that rules out a lot of different pairings–that between a man and an animal, or a man and a child, or a man and two women. Just because homosexual pairing does not fall into the definition of marriage does not mean it’s discriminatory against any one person–it is, rather, a preservation of the significance of marriage that has been considered constitutional for 200+ years.
Furthermore–it is wrong. Marriage was not meant to be anything else. If you change the pairing structure, than it is no longer a marriage.
I would, however, think there should be tax benefits available to any civil union–the same as marriage. But don’t try to call it a marriage. It isn’t. You would be trying to change a definition, rather than interpreting the constitution “correctly”.
@sometimestheystaydead - I’m sorry–none of those lead me to believe that it is unconstitional. “Marriage as a right” is concerning the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. Discrimination against gays isn’t even the issue here, so it is irrelevant to your argument that it would somehow make this law unconstitutional. It’s not “anti-gay” so much as “pro-marriage”, as it has always been defined.
I would agree that the same tax-benefits should be extended to civil-unions as marriages, so that the definition of marriage would remain intact, and that the gay community would not feel discriminated against, if that is the issue.
@Jenny_Wren - “Marriage as a right” is concerning the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman.”
The Supreme Court made no such delimitation. Are you making this up or do you actually have a citation to back you up?
Loving v. Virignia ruled on marriage in general. Opposite-Sex marriage is marriage. Same-sex marriage is marriage.
“Discrimination against gays isn’t even the issue here…”
Dude, are you stupid? The Reinhardt majority opinion in the 9th Circuit Court Majority opinion cites irrational discrimination as the very reason the majority upheld the district court decision to strike down Prop 8.
Discrimination is precisely what the 14th Amendment forbid.
“I would agree that the same tax-benefits should be extended to civil-unions as marriages…”
“Seperate but equal.” Have you ever heard of that?
The very act of distinguishing between marriage and non-marriage is in and of itself discriminatory. There is no rational basis of carving out “civil unions” just for gays than to put gays and lesbians on a lower pedestal than straights.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - yeah his pic seems outdated too………..looks like something from the 1950s and makes him look like a serial killer
@sometimestheystaydead - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
^ ^Definition of marriage, as recognized by US law. I’m not making this up.
It is not irrationally discriminatory. It is going against accepted historical definition.
And, yes, because marriage is something that has not only traditional and historical but spiritual significance, it would make more sense for civil unions to be practiced between a gay couple. Marriage has often been seen as a picture of Christ and the Church. Why would that upset gay couples if they did not partake in that meaning, or that tradition?
@Jenny_Wren - Actually, it was never legally defined so specifically – that’s why DOMA was created and state amendments followed. Either way, for it to be considered constitutional to ban same-sex marriage there must be a compelling reason to discriminate against homosexuals, so what is the compelling reason? Someone’s definition of a word? A religious conviction? Neither of those are compelling reasons to classify a group of human beings as “lesser” than other human beings. People are allowed to feel that way based on religious convictions, but in America you don’t get to pass laws forcing others to follow specific religious convictions.
I don’t know, but that sign is pretty darn funny.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - No, you aren’t simply stating a fact, you’re extrapolating to where you believe things will go in this society when gay marriage is allowed. The only sentance I was talking about was: “Since there could be an infinite number of sexual preferences the notion of rights would become meaningless. If marriage is a right based on sexual preference, than anyone with any sexual preference whatsoever would then have the right to be married. That includes marriage between man and man, woman and woman or man and spoon”
In my opinion, that’s totally absurd. Really, a SPOON? That’s the best argument you can make? If you can honestly tell me you’re afraid that gay marriage will lead directly to people getting married to spoons, then, OK, you’re just stating facts. If not, then, yes, your argument is crap.
i’m all for it
@Jenny_Wren - I recommend you check out the recent entry on the subject by TheMushyPear, as he put it quite well. You do not own the word marriage. You do not own the definition, it is not yours to define. It has been redefined plenty of times, throughout history, and yes, even U.S. history. It used to be that interracial couples couldn’t marry, for example. But we eventually realized that a definition of marriage which mandated that both partners be of the same race was a discriminatory one, and corrected our policies accordingly. This is just another step in that process. Homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. Personally, I think it’s a mistake for the government to be involved in marriage in the first place, but if they’re going to offer that title and the benefits that come with it to heterosexual couples, they have to offer it to homosexuals as well. This will not, however, require them to offer it to pairings between people and animals, or adults and children, because animals and children do not have the same rights as adults. Polygamy may be a bit more of a sticky subject, but we can certainly cross that bridge, as a nation, when we come to it.
@MethodOfMyMadness - abortion is a bit different due to multiple people being involved instead of two will people, but that in it self is a mess in its own.
@NotWhereIThought -I would also like to point out a man has legallymarried a video game character in japan… at lest you can masturbate with your spoon wife or husband.
@immoral_sensei - haha, i guess…but that marriage is also not legally binding, so it’s not really “marriage” in the same legal sense. interestingly, gay marriage is not legal in Japan either!
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Hardly. There is a long history to the idea that the rights of minorities cannot be reasonably protected just by popular vote. That’s one of the functions of the judiciary, to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are upheld, even when the voters or the legislature decide to enact certain laws.
As for my marriage and its effect on Western Civiliation, I’ve been married for going on three years and, amazingly, Western Civilization still exists just the same as it was on the day before I married.
@christao408 - Homosexuality is a sexual preference not a minority status. There is no right to marriage and sexual preference is not a basis upon which to bestow rights. You folks are creating rights and definitions out of thin air and then shoving them down everyone’s throat. It is up to a self governing populous to decide these issues, not a group of jack booted thugs or oligarchs posing as judges.
@NotWhereIThought - I’ve extrapolated nothing, either. I’m simply explaining what authentic rights are and giving a lesson in basic civics. The self-governing populous of a republic decides it mores and laws not an unelected oligarchy of judges.
WHO CARES! With all the problems in the world today, does this issue even really matter??
I totally believe in gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they be able to monogomously share their love for one another? I don’t want to be attracted to the female form more than the male, but I just am. If I ever get with a woman and find she is my soulmate, I’d like to be able to marry her.
@sometimestheystaydead - You might observe that I said “why does **anybody** care.” I never suggested that some portion of the population should be treated differently.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Perhaps you simply don’t understand the word “extrapolated”. It means to predict what will happen in a situation. That is pretty much what you did, dude. Actually, in this case, you’re just dead wrong. In states where gay marriage is indeed legal, no body has yet to marry a spoon. But you’re still infering what may happen, and in my opinion, it’s totally absurd to think peole will end up fighting to marry their cutlery.
@NotWhereIThought - I’m not dead wrong. I’m exactly right. I’m exactly right because what you call “extrapolation” is already happening. Gays have brow beat and guilt tripped our society for 40 years into thinking that they are normal. 3% out of 97% is not normal, it’s an aberration. Of course my heart goes out to anyone in love. But this is a question about what is good for society and whether the issue is really gay rights or the destruction of Christian civil society.
At first it was gays. Now it’s lesbians, bi-sexuals and transexuals. All California school children are now forced by law into being indoctrinated into the sexual perversions of historical figures. The Catholic Church has been run out of the adoption business in Massachusetts other states.
What you call an “extrapolation” is actually a generalization based on a true principle. And that principle is that once we all accept homosexuality as “normal” than all sexual preferences must be accepted as normal. There is nothing superior or special about homosexuality. It is one of infinite sexual preferences.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Please link to an article where a man (or woman) is trying to marry a spoon. If you cannot do that, then you example of what, in your view, may happen if gays are allowd to marry is absurd. My only comment about what you said is that it’s absurd to argue against gay marriage because enventially men will want to marry spoons.
Yes, a push to make homosexuality more acceptable in society is underway. If that scares you, or concerns you in anyway, extrapolating that men will want to marry spoons is sillyness and makes you look more fearful than anything.
@NotWhereIThought - You are being deliberately obtuse. There is no way to address that. If you can’t understand a simple principle and evidence that proves that simple principle than there is no use to continue.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - I assure you, it’s not deliberate. I am trying to clearly tell you my one objection to your arugment. My one and only comment was that it’s fallaceous to say gay marriage will lead to men wanting to marry their spoons. It’s absurd to think that, IMHO. I didn’t attack any other aspect of your argument but only suggested you could frame things better than using absurd examples. I mentioned that in my earlier post. Did you read them? I am only talking about that one aspect of your argument. Talk about obtuse, jeesh.
If you want me to argue against the rest of your original post, I can. I don’t think there is anything wrong is ensuring equal rights for all people. To me, that includes people with different sexual preferences. It is absurd to say that if two sexual preferences are ensured equality that every single type of preference needs that same equal treatment. That is, there needs to be a limit. I cannot say that I would support donkey:man marriages, for example. But to be totally honest, it’s more from the fact that we cannot communicate with donkeys the same way we can with other humans. It’s probably safe to assume I’d support most kinds of human to human marriages, as long as they are both consenting. Consent, to me, is the key. Not the only key, mind you.
As far as your stance on human rights and where it comes from, I disagree. At least, in part. But that’s your opinion and so totally based on your relligious world view there’s kinda no point in us discussing.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Nope, not a preference at all. I can attest to that from personal experience.
Give them pork products and send them on their merry gay way.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway - Im pretty effin sure that if you put civil rights to a vote in the South years ago, the voice of the people would have said blacks cant marry whites. Sometimes people are wrong. The constitution was made for many reasons, one of them being to make sure everyone kept equal rights.. or at least had the opportunity to fight for them. People voted, and gay people took it to court. Thats basically what happened in the south as well, with cases like Brown vs. Board of Education. This isnt something new.
@loveable_lush - Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is not a civil right. It’s a moral issue and that’s exactly the kind of issue that must be settled by the people, not a judicial oligarchy.
Absolutely!
Sure
@Melissa___Dawn - @sometimestheystaydead - I haven’t read all of this debate but I did notice that both of you made claims that not allowing people in the gay community to marry is putting GLBT on a lesser pedestal. I don’t quite understand how you came up with that connection. Could you explain a little further?