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

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

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.

[grimmie 179]

Salt Lake City HQ is going to have to up the ante to battle this.

[Marinus 0]

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.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

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.

[BoogeyMan 0]

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.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Either stay in context and stop wasting bandwidth or bugger off.

Well, you score 2/1000000 points on th moderator index, so I can safely ignore your nonsense.

And good luck with faking you're not a REMF!

[BoogeyMan 0]

Your gibberish is unintelligible.

[lawrocket 3]

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.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Your gibberish is unintelligible.

I don't think that's the problem. My "gibberish" is probably understandable to anyone but the slowest native English.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Do you have anything to post about the 9th Ct's decision?

[BoogeyMan 0]

"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?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Do you have anything to post about the 9th Ct's decision?

No, but that isn't really a prerequisite to participate in this discussion, or is it?

[rehmwa 2]

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

[BoogeyMan 0]

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.

[rehmwa 2]

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

[livendive 8]

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)

[BoogeyMan 0]

"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.

[BoogeyMan 0]

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?
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....

[lawrocket 3]

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.

[Shotgun 1]

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

OK, it's old, but....

[BoogeyMan 0]

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.

[sacex250 0]

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?

That's funny! What planet are you from?

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[BoogeyMan 0]

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?

That's funny! What planet are you from?

That's the very best you can dream up? Lame & Stooo-pid.

[funjumper101 15]

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.

[wmw999 2,313]

That is a great post.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)