Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 5:55:51 PM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 5:55:53 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		How nice...willfull obtuseness as a debating tactic.You can't make this shit up

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 5:58:06 PM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:07:34 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:08:55 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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!







If that took a crystal ball what do you use for things that are actually difficult to foresee?

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:16:38 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/5/2010 6:22:17 PM >

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:20:44 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:23:42 PM   
laurell3


Posts: 6577
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I cannot be defined by moments in my life, but must be considered for by the entirety of my existence.

When you fail to consider that I am the best judge for what is right for me, all of your opinions become suspect to me.

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:26:45 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to laurell3)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:29:36 PM   
WyldHrt


Posts: 6412
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by WyldHrt -- 8/5/2010 6:31:02 PM >

_____________________________

"MotherFUCKER!" is NOT a safeword!!"- Steel
"We've had complaints about 'orgy noises'. This is not the neighborhood for that kind of thing"- PVE Cop

Resident "Hypnotic Eyes", "Cleavage" and "Toy Whore"
Subby Mafia, VAA Posse & Team Troll!

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:37:41 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:39:06 PM   
BeingChewsie


Posts: 1633
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

"In fact, it is my contention that most women are accepting of way less than optimal circumstance constantly, and are lucky to be 'snagged' by the right man, if ever. But it is more by happy accident than by their design. "
~Ron and Hup

(in reply to WyldHrt)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:42:42 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 8/5/2010 6:44:31 PM >

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to laurell3)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:44:40 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:46:11 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:49:56 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by vincentML -- 8/5/2010 6:52:06 PM >

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 6:50:45 PM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
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".


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 7:05:43 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 7:14:16 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 8/5/2010 7:39:37 PM >

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage i... - 8/5/2010 7:54:45 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109