TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Aug 5, 2010 9:56:34 GMT -5
Don't want to hijack this thread, but they're legal victories, not political ones - When we're talking about federal court judges and Supremes that's a distinction without a difference.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 5, 2010 10:34:56 GMT -5
But hey, as long as we're all being snarky about it, we should probably discuss how one opponent of gay marriage plans to handle this crushing defeat. What say you, Mr. President? Touche Seriously, I really don't care too much about the issue. As long as there's a legal equivalent to marriage open to gays (i.e. civil unions), I'm fine with it. The state should recognize all unions—heterosexual and homosexual—as "civil unions." Churches and other religious institutions can define "marriage" however they choose. So someone "married" in a church would also be recognized as part of a "civil union" because the state's role in this whole thing should be in recognizing the "union" of two people. Homosexual couples should get their "civil union" through the state, and if they can find a church that wants to call them "married," then so be it. They're "married" in the eyes of whatever religion "marries" them.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 5, 2010 11:05:55 GMT -5
Touche Seriously, I really don't care too much about the issue. As long as there's a legal equivalent to marriage open to gays (i.e. civil unions), I'm fine with it. The state should recognize all unions—heterosexual and homosexual—as "civil unions." Churches and other religious institutions can define "marriage" however they choose. So someone "married" in a church would also be recognized as part of a "civil union" because the state's role in this whole thing should be in recognizing the "union" of two people. Homosexual couples should get their "civil union" through the state, and if they can find a church that wants to call them "married," then so be it. They're "married" in the eyes of whatever religion "marries" them. I think, going as far back as you want to go back, "marriage" as a civil institution predates "marriage" as a religious institution. I'm not positive of that, but I'm pretty sure. Having said that, I am perfectly happy with your solution. In the intervening thousands of years, "marriage" has become a sacred component of many religions and personally, I think it would be nice to be able to protect/preserve that for them. The state can recognize partnerships of whatever manner the state chooses to recognize partnerships. Even better, the state could get out of this business altogether. But since that'll never happen......what strummer said.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 5, 2010 11:11:20 GMT -5
Does anyone have any report of the undoubtedly long line of heterosexual couples now filing divorce papers due to the new threat posed by others to their marriages? It's next to line of polygamous couples seeks marriage licenses. After all, as the judge says, ""Moral disapproval alone" is not enough to deny the right to marriage.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 5, 2010 12:02:53 GMT -5
Touche Seriously, I really don't care too much about the issue. As long as there's a legal equivalent to marriage open to gays (i.e. civil unions), I'm fine with it. The state should recognize all unions—heterosexual and homosexual—as "civil unions." Churches and other religious institutions can define "marriage" however they choose. So someone "married" in a church would also be recognized as part of a "civil union" because the state's role in this whole thing should be in recognizing the "union" of two people. Homosexual couples should get their "civil union" through the state, and if they can find a church that wants to call them "married," then so be it. They're "married" in the eyes of whatever religion "marries" them. I'm with you and Boz on that one. Keep the church out of our civil laws, keep the state out of our church practices. What a novel concept.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2010 12:48:37 GMT -5
The state should recognize all unions—heterosexual and homosexual—as "civil unions." Churches and other religious institutions can define "marriage" however they choose. So someone "married" in a church would also be recognized as part of a "civil union" because the state's role in this whole thing should be in recognizing the "union" of two people. Homosexual couples should get their "civil union" through the state, and if they can find a church that wants to call them "married," then so be it. They're "married" in the eyes of whatever religion "marries" them. I'm with you and Boz on that one. Keep the church out of our civil laws, keep the state out of our church practices. What a novel concept. And keep the bench out of legislating.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2010 12:58:34 GMT -5
The political right has asked the bench to "legislate" by defining marriage in terms that it believes to be correct. To blame the left for yesterday's decision (to the extent blame is something to pass around for this) would be highly mistaken given Judge Walker's nomination history.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 5, 2010 13:52:54 GMT -5
The political right has asked the bench to "legislate" by defining marriage in terms that it believes to be correct. To blame the left for yesterday's decision (to the extent blame is something to pass around for this) would be highly mistaken given Judge Walker's nomination history. I'm sorry, I thought the people, through referendum or their legislators have been defining what is marriage. How is a popular vote to pass language that states, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," asking the bench to define marriage?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 5, 2010 14:00:53 GMT -5
The political right has asked the bench to "legislate" by defining marriage in terms that it believes to be correct. To blame the left for yesterday's decision (to the extent blame is something to pass around for this) would be highly mistaken given Judge Walker's nomination history. I'm sorry, I thought the people, through referendum or their legislators have been defining what is marriage. How is a popular vote to pass language that states, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," asking the bench to define marriage? Jersey disagreed with it. It's like how he considers unpopular bills that he doesn't like to be bad, but considers unpopular bills he likes to be poorly explained.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2010 14:04:28 GMT -5
KC - perhaps the better statement would have been that the right has asked the bench to accept their definition of marriage. To qualify a rejection of that definition as legislating and acceptance of that definition as something like "interpreting the law" by comparison is a bit much for me. There are enough data points now to suggest that judges are on decent ground in these challenges to so-called DOMA laws, and the issue will probably come before SCOTUS.
Junk like "legislating from the bench" and "activist judge" are terms that are relatively devoid of meaning in political discussions IMO.
On to the Ninth Circuit...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 5, 2010 14:33:29 GMT -5
KC - perhaps the better statement would have been that the right has asked the bench to accept their definition of marriage. To qualify a rejection of that definition as legislating and acceptance of that definition as something like "interpreting the law" by comparison is a bit much for me. There are enough data points now to suggest that judges are on decent ground in these challenges to so-called DOMA laws, and the issue will probably come before SCOTUS. Junk like "legislating from the bench" and "activist judge" are terms that are relatively devoid of meaning in political discussions IMO. On to the Ninth Circuit... You're leaving out the people though. Everyone acts like Prop 8 was something forced down the throats of Californians against their will, but it was a legitimately enacted, highly contested (and so highly visible) referendum voted on by California during a presidential election with high Democratic turnout. It's the people of California's definition of marriage, legitimately voted on by them. The method used was the same as the method used by the people of California to amend their state constitution to create an explicit right to privacy.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2010 14:41:18 GMT -5
I don't doubt any of that, but such could also describe many laws that have hit the cutting-room floor when they are challenged. Whether Walker's decision makes it through the meatgrinder, I don't know, but I am glad that the issue is at least on the table.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 5, 2010 14:52:44 GMT -5
I'm with you and Boz on that one. Keep the church out of our civil laws, keep the state out of our church practices. What a novel concept. And keep the bench out of legislating. Yeah, I wish judges would keep their stupid opinions about constitutional rights to themselves. And I wish I could send my kid to an all-white public school. Judges ruin everything. I think everyone over the age of 80 should be gently and humanely put to death. The cost of keeping people alive much past that just isn't worth the benefits. I mean, older people aren't even raising children at that age, and if they are, it certainly can't be good for the children! So according to me, it's moral to just end lives at the nice, round number of 80 years. Let's put that to a popular vote, and if it passes, then the judges should just shut the hell up and let the state go about its business, "rights" and "Constitution" and "common sense" be damned.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 5, 2010 15:04:55 GMT -5
I think everyone over the age of 80 should be gently and humanely put to death. The cost of keeping people alive much past that just isn't worth the benefits. I mean, older people aren't even raising children at that age, and if they are, it certainly can't be good for the children! So according to me, it's moral to just end lives at the nice, round number of 80 years. Had. To. Be. Done.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 5, 2010 16:43:12 GMT -5
KC - perhaps the better statement would have been that the right has asked the bench to accept their definition of marriage. To qualify a rejection of that definition as legislating and acceptance of that definition as something like "interpreting the law" by comparison is a bit much for me. There are enough data points now to suggest that judges are on decent ground in these challenges to so-called DOMA laws, and the issue will probably come before SCOTUS. Junk like "legislating from the bench" and "activist judge" are terms that are relatively devoid of meaning in political discussions IMO. On to the Ninth Circuit... You're leaving out the people though. Everyone acts like Prop 8 was something forced down the throats of Californians against their will, but it was a legitimately enacted, highly contested (and so highly visible) referendum voted on by California during a presidential election with high Democratic turnout. It's the people of California's definition of marriage, legitimately voted on by them. The method used was the same as the method used by the people of California to amend their state constitution to create an explicit right to privacy. I HATE this argument. If I get a law saying we should dismember Paris Hilton, I think I could get it passed. The Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular are there to prevent a tyranny of the majority. And the activist part is silly as well. Has anyone read the 14th Amendment? No matter what you rule, you're activist!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2010 18:30:12 GMT -5
The people of California, by referendum, decided to amend their constitution to define marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The U.S. constitution does not give the federal government any authority over the subject and states those things not enumerated are reserved for the state or the people. A single person, a judge, overturned the decision of the people and the state of California. That's the epitome of legislating from the bench.
In the United States, marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman. Can anyone present any evidence the drafters of the constitution or its amendments intended marriage to be other than that? To ascribe the meaning Judge Walker offered is against what the intent of the drafters had in mind. Recently those on the left have attempted to re-define it to include homosexual unions. This is contrary to the original intent of the 14th amendment and all other elements of the constitution. Judge Walker's pronouncement spits in the face of the constitution and his language opens up the possibility of defining marriage to include multuple spouses and, perhaps, marriages of children. To forbid any of these would disciminatory and against the constitution, according to his words.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 5, 2010 19:14:11 GMT -5
Easyed, you sould probably read the decision.
But providing for equal protection under the law is part of the US Constitution as amended in the 14th Amendment. And so Californians are not allowed to deny a fundamental right just to specific groups of people.
If you read the amendment, and any of the arguments, you understand that no matter which way a judge rules in this case it's activist.
Your arguments are more or less the same that were forwarded back when interracial marriages were banned, Ed. The founders undoubtedly did not intend marriage to be between two races of people; it had never occurred in the history of the US.
And yet, being of the same race is not integral to the idea of marriage, just as (if you read the ruling) being able to procreate is not integral to the idea of marriage. If it were, sterile people should not be able to marry. Marriage should be dissolved past the point of menopause.
Personally, I am always disturbed by the passion of the opponents of gay marriage. For generally religious people, they spend their time ranting about what people choose to call themselves and if they get benefits rather than, oh, I don't know, orphans, starving children, genocide, etc.
Why are you so scared of this?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2010 19:18:52 GMT -5
One other side point - there was considerable debate at the time as to whether the 14th Amendment extended marital rights to African-Americans and legal questions concerning mixed-race marriages were litigated for some time even after the 14th Amendment was enacted. It is clear from everything before us that to the extent that the original Constitution spoke to questions of marriage, the institution was largely defined as one available only to white people.
A narrow focus on the strict intent of the 14th Amendment may also deny marital rights to folks who only recently immigrated to the US, particularly certain Asian communities.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 6, 2010 8:08:47 GMT -5
You're leaving out the people though. Everyone acts like Prop 8 was something forced down the throats of Californians against their will, but it was a legitimately enacted, highly contested (and so highly visible) referendum voted on by California during a presidential election with high Democratic turnout. It's the people of California's definition of marriage, legitimately voted on by them. The method used was the same as the method used by the people of California to amend their state constitution to create an explicit right to privacy. I HATE this argument. If I get a law saying we should dismember Paris Hilton, I think I could get it passed. The Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular are there to prevent a tyranny of the majority. And the activist part is silly as well. Has anyone read the 14th Amendment? No matter what you rule, you're activist! My response was mainly to point out that Jersey's claim that the political right was asking the bench to legislate was wrong, since Prop 8 was passed by the people. I don't really care that much about gay marriage. If gays want to subject themselves to marriage, well, that's their mistake, not mine. ;D
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 6, 2010 11:09:11 GMT -5
I'm all for defense of the Constitution in terms of the intentions of the drafters with the caveat that we realize that the drafters and those intentions were products of the time in which they lived.
Personally, I don't get why people get their panties in a bunch over gay marriage. Without invoking the Constitution, intuitively does it not just seem equitable? Doesn't banning it just feel wrong? Does to me.
|
|