RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:55:51 PM)
Rob, Take the sexuality out of it. I'm not talking about "sexual orientation". I'm talking about gender discrimination. We're talking about the civil contract known as "marriage". To disallow a person to be able to make ANY civil contract with another consenting adult based on the gender of either party is in direct violation of the equal protections clause in the Constitution. Please address the gender discrimination part only. Thank you.

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:55:53 PM)
How nice...willfull obtuseness as a debating tactic.You can't make this shit up [:D]

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:58:06 PM)
No, you have the right to marry a female and I have the right to marry a male as it stands. These are not the "same" rights. The right to establish the civil contract known as "marriage" with a consenting adult is the "same" right we both possess.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Sadly many only wish it to work that way when it supports their view. It's a real shame some jump to conclusions about another's view...As mine is clearly posted on previous gay marriage threads as being all for allowing homosexuals to marry and be happy. My problem stems from a federal judge trumping state's rights and laws. But like I said it's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings to the right, and some conservative federal judge will trump say for instance, California's marijuana laws. Fuks sakes man, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Only the 10th speaks to State's Rights. The 14th speaks to Equal Protection for citizens and was proudly passed by Republicans. The 14h asserts the States shall provide Equal Protection. Yep, those good ol days of the right of States to regulate their negras as private property has been whittled away. Sob! Actually most of the Constitution speaks to states rights since it delineates and limits the Federal governments power. Everything else is either a state or individual right.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The ruling A very compelling read. I love when my crystal ball works so well. Pretty much everything I said in the Prop 8 thread around May of last year was in that ruling and rightfully so. From the Prop 8 thread back in May '09 "Then what's going to happen is that two people who are of the same sex will go and try to get married in CA and be denied. With 18,000 same sex marriages lawful in CA, they will be able to make a strong case for appeal with citation of the 14th amendment. Once that happens, then Prop 8 will have to be repealed regardless of the current language. It's going to be a long process.. probably two or three years at least, but unless the 14th gets somehow overturned (and it won't) this issue will be defeated and same sex marriage will have to be allowed in CA." On to the 9th circuit! [:D] If that took a crystal ball what do you use for things that are actually difficult to foresee?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The will of the majority must bend before the rights of the minority. That's why we have a Constitution. Just where does it say homosexuals cannot get married again? A gay man has the exact same right to marry a lesbian female, as heterosexual couple does, they even get the same benefits, and tax breaks as heterosexuals do...Go figure. Nowhere that I'm aware of does it say you must actually love the person you're marrying in a civil marriage service. The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality. Wells....that is how you see it. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS sees it. Here is the equal rights protection: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So there are two issues. What is due process of law? Does the majority of voters amending a state constitution violate due process? Methinks not. If that is correct, then what does "equal protection" mean? Is granting a right to a limited group the same as not protecting those outside the group? What did the framers mean by "protection" in this context? And to Elizabeth Anne's point, is civil union, which is permitted in Ca, equal to marriage? Methinks it is. I think SCOTUS has plenty of room to uphold the will of the people. Moreover, I think its a state issue, though arguably it could fall under the already bastardized commerce clause, since states not recognizing a marriage that is valid in another state could restrict commerce.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Rights aren`t subject to popular elections or referendums. That`s why they`re called rights. Rights are only those things defined as rights under the law. Law is supposed to be set by the people..ie via elections or referendums.

laurell3 -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen Rob, Take the sexuality out of it. I'm not talking about "sexual orientation". I'm talking about gender discrimination. We're talking about the civil contract known as "marriage". To disallow a person to be able to make ANY civil contract with another consenting adult based on the gender of either party is in direct violation of the equal protections clause in the Constitution. Please address the gender discrimination part only. Thank you. Except it isn't "gender discrimination" nor a violation of the equal protections clause as decided under the current law which already has clearly deliniated protected classes as the defining premise for any legal argument invoking it. The fact that you keep saying you see it that way, doesn't change the rulings on the issue. It is actually going to have to be addressed for what it is. A nonprotected class that should be recognized as a protected class and it's questionable whether the USSC will have the courage to do so.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen Rob, Take the sexuality out of it. I'm not talking about "sexual orientation". I'm talking about gender discrimination. We're talking about the civil contract known as "marriage". To disallow a person to be able to make ANY civil contract with another consenting adult based on the gender of either party is in direct violation of the equal protections clause in the Constitution. Please address the gender discrimination part only. Thank you. Except it isn't "gender discrimination" nor a violation of the equal protections clause as decided under the current law which already has clearly deliniated protected classes as the defining premise for any legal argument invoking it. The fact that you keep saying you see it that way, doesn't change the rulings on the issue. It is actually going to have to be addressed for what it is. A nonprotected class that should be recognized as a protected class and it's questionable whether the USSC will have the courage to do so. This, except there is more to it than courage.

WyldHrt -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:29:36 PM)
quote: The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality. Ah, but when this is all over (and some day it will be), you will have the exact same right to marry another man and a straight female will have the exact same right to marry another woman, that gays and lesbians have. Where do you see an inequality in that?

BitaTruble -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If that took a crystal ball what do you use for things that are actually difficult to foresee? What does this post have to do with the topic of this thread? If you want to engage in meaningful dialogue, I'm all for it. I posted the link to the entire Prop 8 thread from 09 and then quoted a very minute portion. If you want to know the complete context of what I wrote, it's right there in the link. If you have actual, meaningful questions to ask, I'll be happy to answer otherwise, don't expect me to engage further with you on the subject. Thanks.

BeingChewsie -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:39:06 PM)
Quick reply: I hope down the road this leads to the elimination of the archaic idea that marriage must only be between two people. I hope after this issue gets settled and gays can marry that will be the next thing changed.

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Except it isn't "gender discrimination" nor a violation of the equal protections clause as decided under the current law which already has clearly deliniated protected classes as the defining premise for any legal argument invoking it. The fact that you keep saying you see it that way, doesn't change the rulings on the issue. It is actually going to have to be addressed for what it is. A nonprotected class that should be recognized as a protected class and it's questionable whether the USSC will have the courage to do so. Protected class was a phrase that was defined and grew out of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. It is not in the lexicon of the 14th Amendment except as an invention in your mind. I don't mean to be rude but the Equal Protection Clause which states as Willbeur quoted it above: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Amendment says nothing about nor does it pertain to "protected class" unless you can cite some case law to the contrary; it clearly protects persons.

juliaoceania -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen No, you have the right to marry a female and I have the right to marry a male as it stands. These are not the "same" rights. The right to establish the civil contract known as "marriage" with a consenting adult is the "same" right we both possess. And trying to get around it with this "civil union" bullshit is cowardly way out, separate but equal didn't hold up either

juliaoceania -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Rights aren`t subject to popular elections or referendums. That`s why they`re called rights. Rights are only those things defined as rights under the law. Law is supposed to be set by the people..ie via elections or referendums. WRONG. Elections do not enumerate our rights, the CONSTITUTION does... seriously, where did you learn American Civics from?

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Rights aren`t subject to popular elections or referendums. That`s why they`re called rights. Rights are only those things defined as rights under the law. Law is supposed to be set by the people..ie via elections or referendums. OMG Will, where did you ever come up with the notion that rights are granted only by the legislature? Whatever happened to inalienable rights and human rights? Whatever happened to checks and balances of the three branches of government? Do you mean to claim that the function of the SCOTUS is to affirm only those things granted by the Legislative Branch? Do you mean that all the Case Law affirmed by the Appelate Division and by SCOTUS were only charades and had no effect in Law?

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 6:50:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen No, you have the right to marry a female and I have the right to marry a male as it stands. These are not the "same" rights. The right to establish the civil contract known as "marriage" with a consenting adult is the "same" right we both possess. And trying to get around it with this "civil union" bullshit is cowardly way out, separate but equal didn't hold up either Please note that I referred to the civil CONTRACT known as "marriage". Not once did I mention "civil union".

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 7:05:43 PM)
quote: So there are two issues. What is due process of law? Does the majority of voters amending a state constitution violate due process? Methinks not. If that is correct, then what does "equal protection" mean? Is granting a right to a limited group the same as not protecting those outside the group? What did the framers mean by "protection" in this context? And to Elizabeth Anne's point, is civil union, which is permitted in Ca, equal to marriage? Methinks it is. Again, this is not a right granted to a limited group. Every person (not group) has protection from injustice, both procedural and substantive. So, conversely you cannot grant the right to marriage to some persons and not to others. Doesn't matter if there is an alternative. In 1953 public school integration ruling the SCOTUS struck down "seperate but equal" as an acceptable doctrine.

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 7:14:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Sadly many only wish it to work that way when it supports their view. It's a real shame some jump to conclusions about another's view...As mine is clearly posted on previous gay marriage threads as being all for allowing homosexuals to marry and be happy. My problem stems from a federal judge trumping state's rights and laws. But like I said it's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings to the right, and some conservative federal judge will trump say for instance, California's marijuana laws. Fuks sakes man, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Only the 10th speaks to State's Rights. The 14th speaks to Equal Protection for citizens and was proudly passed by Republicans. The 14h asserts the States shall provide Equal Protection. Yep, those good ol days of the right of States to regulate their negras as private property has been whittled away. Sob! Actually most of the Constitution speaks to states rights since it delineates and limits the Federal governments power. Everything else is either a state or individual right. Not so, Will. Have a look at the Case Law that supported Social Security Legislation under the General Welfare Clause in the 1930s. Furthermore, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments clearly proscribe State governements from certain actions. Certainly, the 14th is very emphatic in telling the States what they cannot do to "persons" within their jurusdictions. Look also at the 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments which further limit State actions.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 7:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Rights aren`t subject to popular elections or referendums. That`s why they`re called rights. Rights are only those things defined as rights under the law. Law is supposed to be set by the people..ie via elections or referendums. WRONG. Elections do not enumerate our rights, the CONSTITUTION does... seriously, where did you learn American Civics from? ORLY. I ddint realize the Constitution appeared magically out of thin air.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375