0
lawrocket

Ninth Circuit Finds Prop 8's Banning of Gay and Lesbian Marriage Unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote




Do you believe that this decision will withstand a challenge at the SC? The Federal standards are defined and have been restated as to what is a "miniority" or a "class".



Everyone seems to think that it's a given that the Supreme Court will take an appeal. The decision today is very narrowly tailored to CA, and as such they may decide that it has no reach on a federal level, much as the other states that have allowed gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. Same sex marriage is about the right to marry the person you want to marry, not about sexual orientation. In normal countries a bisexual man is allowed to marry a man, despite the fact he's able to be in a romantic/sexual relationship with woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote




Do you believe that this decision will withstand a challenge at the SC? The Federal standards are defined and have been restated as to what is a "miniority" or a "class".



Everyone seems to think that it's a given that the Supreme Court will take an appeal. The decision today is very narrowly tailored to CA, and as such they may decide that it has no reach on a federal level, much as the other states that have allowed gay marriage.





Since the 9th has seemingly disenfranchised the voters of California, this case will likely go to the Supremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not really. Same sex marriage is about the right to marry the person you want to marry, not about sexual orientation. In normal countries a bisexual man is allowed to marry a man, despite the fact he's able to be in a romantic/sexual relationship with woman.




This thread is about the USA and a decision by a United States Court. Either stay in context and stop wasting bandwidth or bugger off.B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is there any right that same sex couples are denied that cannot be accommodated by a civil contract?




What’s a marriage? Yep. A contract. With a very specific purpose and a whole set of presumptions that go along with it.

I’m sure one could draft a contract for marriage and list out all kinds of terms and things. Those terms are called “The Family Code” in California. It’s so specific and broad that the nature of the marital agreement is something that people try to contract AROUND. Pre-nuptial agreements and the like.

I’ve handle dozens of divorces. The rules are set up to be followed and they recognize what marriage is. I’ve also handled the division of assets when there is no marriage, and it’s a mess. Rather than having laws set up to recognize what it is, it is a dissolution of a partnership. It requires accountings, loads of documents up the ass, forensic accountants, etc. Take a divorce and quadruple to work.

Marriage laws recognize the nature of the relationship. You could either draw up a contract or you could just get married and have all those rules apply. Nevertheless, without marriage, there are plenty of rights you aren’t given. Wouldn’t it suck to have to file a court action to get every benefit that married people are just entitled to?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Wouldn’t it suck to have to file a court action to get every benefit that married people are just entitled to?"



Again, there's that distinction between "rights" and "benefits".
Corporations prefer to have a union to maintain the work force. Can you imagine having annually to renegotiate every single employee's working agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Not every citizen gets the same benefits as the next. Look at single persons. They
>have to pay taxes for schools.

So do married couples without children. So do married couples _with_ children.



taxes for schools - an uncomfortable examples for this issue, it's silly. If we want to provide education for the children, then the benefit needs to follow the child, not the school (i.e., choice) - regardless of marital status of the guardians.

The better example is that married couples might get deductions or penalties that two independent single people can't get - that's silly

again - the problem with government trying to 'encourage' behavior rather than just having rules for "individuals' being the same

you know my position - marriage and the inferred contractual benefits should be eliminated completely from law. treat the individuals as individuals, and let their partnering activities be personal or laid out on a case by case basis. Or, at least reduce the benefits to partnering to the most bare bones absolutely and then make it a boiler plate contract requiring registration - and allow ANY combination of two people to apply for it.

take out the emotion and the egos, and just treat individual citizens. not pairs, not subgroups.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taxes for schools - an uncomfortable examples for this issue, it's silly. If we want to provide education for the children, then the benefit needs to follow the child, not the school (i.e., choice) - regardless of marital status of the guardians.


It's far from silly. There are a great many singles who loudly protest against being taxed for something they do not use.
The collective viewpoint is that as a "society" the greater good for the future is achieved for all when citizens provide for the common basic education for all children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly in that it's not a good analogy for this discussion
separate from it's a great thread topic



(I'm more in line with the position that if you have a kid, you pay for them. I have a kid, I'd rather pay directly for education than have the government as my middleman.)

it's not just singles that protest, there are parents that also protest - in fact, you completely leave out the point that parents that pay for private education have to pay twice, once for their kid, and again for everybody else (including those singles that had the same free ride through school when they were young).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Corporations prefer to have a union to maintain the work force. Can you imagine having annually to renegotiate every single employee's working agreement?



So far in this thread, you've implied gays are that way by choice, and companies prefer union over non-union labor. Any skepticism on the spherical nature of our planet?

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"you completely leave out the point that parents that pay for private education have to pay twice, once for their kid, and again for everybody else (including those singles that had the same free ride through school when they were young). "


I didn't want to venture that far out in detail. There are some who have major comprehension issues who are also reading these posts. Didn't want to confuse the thread with too many truths.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Corporations prefer to have a union to maintain the work force. Can you imagine having annually to renegotiate every single employee's working agreement?



So far in this thread, you've implied gays are that way by choice, and companies prefer union over non-union labor. Any skepticism on the spherical nature of our planet?

Blues,
Dave



See what I mean about comprehension issues? :D:D
I relate what goes on in courtrooms involving this topic. Like it or not. This is the way it will go.
Large corporations do prefer unions as a means to deal with large groups of employees.
What? You're a flat-earth-er looking for a forum to expound on your version of the truth?
Go ahead....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, there's that distinction between "rights" and "benefits".



You understand, of course, that if everybody gets a benefit from the government except for one class, it's discriminatory. Unless there either an overreaching, compelling or rational basis for doing it.

for example, there are good reasons for excluding men from women's restrooms, such as no man should have to wait in a line like that.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Again, there's that distinction between "rights" and "benefits".



You understand, of course, that if everybody gets a benefit from the government except for one class, it's discriminatory. Unless there either an overreaching, compelling or rational basis for doing it.

for example, there are good reasons for excluding men from women's restrooms, such as no man should have to wait in a line like that.



Absolutely...... I also believe that overburdening a class of citizen is also a concern. As in Bills of Attainder. Look out 1%-ers.!!
It is difficult to have a case certified as a class action. Getting certified as being in a class that is distinctive only in the participation of a certain behavior is going to be some task. Immutability, politically ineffective, and so forth.
Agreed, so far.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

taxes for schools - an uncomfortable examples for this issue, it's silly. If we want to provide education for the children, then the benefit needs to follow the child, not the school (i.e., choice) - regardless of marital status of the guardians.


It's far from silly. There are a great many singles who loudly protest against being taxed for something they do not use.
The collective viewpoint is that as a "society" the greater good for the future is achieved for all when citizens provide for the common basic education for all children.



The people who peceive the "need" to put their children in private school are free to do so. It makes no sense at all that they should receive any special consideration with regard to the taxes they pay. No vouchers, no "portability of funds", or other right wing claptrap. I have no children, and don't plan to have them. I don't get to opt out of paying taxes towards educating the children that are here in the USA. Nor would I want to. There is such a thing as common good, and social responsibility, that is being propagandized out of existence. It is the ultimate in selfishness that ignores the founding principles of the USA. I don't get to make the call on whether or not my tax dollars will be used on a premeditated invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked the USA. I don't get to make the call on whether or not my tax dollars will be used to subsidize extremely low tax rates for the top 1% in this country. The list of issues that each individual tax payer opposes is endless.

There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0