0
lawrocket

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

Recommended Posts

Quote

>Then you will be happy when Obama care is eliminated too

. . . and replaced with RomneyCare. Which is just like Obamacare but with better hair.



IF he is the nominee

which is also another reason he it not fit to get the nomination
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am. I am glad that individual liberty won over government restrictions on our rights.



Absolutely

And, per the intent of the OP - I'm even happier that it appears it was done in an objective and legal way rather than in an activist way.

...
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

Quote

Quote

"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."


That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.




You will simply be on the wrong side of history. Over the past several years, support among the under 35 segment of the country has their support for Gay marriage running close to 70%.

One day in the future, when you are much older, your opinion on Gay marriage will be considered nothing more than a pacuilarr oddity of a different time by your young and baffled grand kids.


It's not a mater of if, it's just a matter of when.



The reason I asked the other question is because it is interesting that a majority opinion has merit when you agree with it

And it doesn't, when you dont
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What happens when a married gay couple in Ca. moves to a state that does not
>recongnize gay marriage???

Then it's up to the state. Maryland, for example, recognizes same-sex marriage performed elsewhere, but does not allow same-sex couples to marry there. So a couple that gets married in NY could move to Maryland and have similar rights.

In most other states it's not recognized so they'd have no legal standing as a married couple there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know this is off thread but....

What happens when a married gay couple in Ca. moves to a state that does not recongnize gay marriage???




there's a lot of whining and complaining and very dramatic gesturing

(I don't know - it wouldn't be an issue if marriage wasn't something the government was involved in in the first place)

...
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

I know this is off thread but....

What happens when a married gay couple in Ca. moves to a state that does not recongnize gay marriage???




This is a case where individual state laws control. I think only a couple of states (I know New Mexico is one) recognize same sex marriages from other states as marriages – in addition to the few states that actually perform gay marriages like Iowa, Connecticut, New York and a couple of others. California (who knows what effect yesterday’s decision will have on this) recognizes/recognized gay marriages as domestic partnerships, and I think this is what most states do.

The Defense of Marriage Act helped make it so that other states did not have to recognize homosexuals as married – even IF the marriages were legal in the place in which they were performed. Most states recognize marriages from other states without a problem.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why would the common good be defined by the will of the majority? I'll grant that it's quite common for people to vote for whatever they think is best for them, but popularity says nothing about morality. So while a majority may believe any particular thing, and vote in favor of it, that merely makes it the common position, without regard to good or evil.

Blues,



I think you are missing the point - People ACTING in their best interests (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others) result in the optimized best interest of the populace in general.

That has nothing to do your inference here that individualism is about People VOTING their best interests and, via legislation, FORCING everyone else to go along with it.......that's the whole 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on food issues....that's still not individualism, it's more of what we got now

you're confusing the common good, with government forcing a common consensus

short answer - you just can't legislate a common good on subjective issues (like social issues), and direct issues kinda work out without interference



It appears the voting portion obscured what I was trying to say. You seem to have defined "common good" as "self interest of the majority", which would in fact make the 2 wolves 1 sheep example analogous. I'm arguing that your previous post on common good was a bit of a strawman, because while a majority, or maybe even plurality may be synonymous with "common" for this purpose, "self interest" is not interchangeable with "good". Popularity and morality are largely unrelated to each other.

That said, I'd further argue that *if* the concept of the common good is even applicable to this argument, it'd go in exactly the opposite direction you suggest. Proponents of Proposition 8 have no claim of "common good" solely because they are more numerous. The only tangible benefits in question were restricted from the minority. The 53% who voted to assert their will on others did not benefit in any way that one could consider 'good' from a moral standpoint. Sure, they got to impose a restriction on membership in their ranks, but exclusivity is certainly no laudable demonstration of virtue.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I know this is off thread but....

What happens when a married gay couple in Ca. moves to a state that does not recongnize gay marriage???




This is a case where individual state laws control. I think only a couple of states (I know New Mexico is one) recognize same sex marriages from other states as marriages – in addition to the few states that actually perform gay marriages like Iowa, Connecticut, New York and a couple of others. California (who knows what effect yesterday’s decision will have on this) recognizes/recognized gay marriages as domestic partnerships, and I think this is what most states do.

The Defense of Marriage Act helped make it so that other states did not have to recognize homosexuals as married – even IF the marriages were legal in the place in which they were performed. Most states recognize marriages from other states without a problem.






One more can of gas on the fire......
The doctrine of "Full Faith and Credit" used to be applied to common law marriages. The DOMA complicated things. It can be viewed as one reason why less governance might be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The 53% who voted to assert their will on others did not benefit in any way that
>one could consider 'good' from a moral standpoint.

They thought they did. They felt that their marriages (something valuable to them) would lose value if gays were allowed to marry as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The 53% who voted to assert their will on others did not benefit in any way that
>one could consider 'good' from a moral standpoint.

They thought they did. They felt that their marriages (something valuable to them) would lose value if gays were allowed to marry as well.



I acknowlged this with my very next sentence, along with my opinion that such an argument has no merit. The only people who can affect the quality or "value" of any particular marriage are the people who are party to it. Whether your neighbors cheat on each other or support and praise each other every day, your marriage is what you and your spouse make it, and those other people's actions are irrelevent.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>along with my opinion that such an argument has no merit. The only people
>who can affect the quality or "value" of any particular marriage are the people
>who are party to it. Whether your neighbors cheat on each other or support
>and praise each other every day, your marriage is what you and your spouse
>make it, and those other people's actions are irrelevent.

I agree. However, THEY felt that way. They felt that allowing gay marriage would cheapen marriage. Some even felt that allowing it would result in enabling pedophiles, requiring homosexual sex ed be taught in elementary schools, allowing people to marry dogs etc. I think such arguments have no merit as well - but certainly the people who espoused them did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>along with my opinion that such an argument has no merit. The only people
>who can affect the quality or "value" of any particular marriage are the people
>who are party to it. Whether your neighbors cheat on each other or support
>and praise each other every day, your marriage is what you and your spouse
>make it, and those other people's actions are irrelevent.

I agree. However, THEY felt that way. They felt that allowing gay marriage would cheapen marriage. Some even felt that allowing it would result in enabling pedophiles, requiring homosexual sex ed be taught in elementary schools, allowing people to marry dogs etc. I think such arguments have no merit as well - but certainly the people who espoused them did.



I wonder at what proximity their marriage becomes cheapened. Do same-sex marriages in France devalue a marriage in Huntington Beach? What about those in New York? Or are they only affected by same-sex marriages in California, or Orange County, or just the City of Huntington Beach?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>along with my opinion that such an argument has no merit. The only people
>who can affect the quality or "value" of any particular marriage are the people
>who are party to it. Whether your neighbors cheat on each other or support
>and praise each other every day, your marriage is what you and your spouse
>make it, and those other people's actions are irrelevent.

I agree. However, THEY felt that way. They felt that allowing gay marriage would cheapen marriage. Some even felt that allowing it would result in enabling pedophiles, requiring homosexual sex ed be taught in elementary schools, allowing people to marry dogs etc. I think such arguments have no merit as well - but certainly the people who espoused them did.



I wonder at what proximity their marriage becomes cheapened. Do same-sex marriages in France devalue a marriage in Huntington Beach? What about those in New York? Or are they only affected by same-sex marriages in California, or Orange County, or just the City of Huntington Beach?

Blues,
Dave



And aren't the marriages of those members of the "Upright Citizens Brigade" also cheapened by the (hetero) marriages of, say, Larry King, Liz Taylor, Cher, Britney Spears, Dennis Rodman, and on and on??
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This is also why i usually end up voting for "liberal" candidates.



I'm not sure what that means - 'liberal' policies just mean new and out of the box (if you avoid the partisan sterotype of the term). They can either move us to more individualistic stances (not restricting marriage, school choice, partial privatization of health care, freedom of travel, speech, etc) or they can move us away and more towards a collectivist stance (restricting rights, telling us what kind of light bulb we have to buy, restricting business opportunities, religious persecution, hiring and firing restrictions, redistribution, usurping property rights)


So saying, that guy's a "liberal" doesn't help - what kind of liberal is important

the funny thing about parties - both the DNC and the RNC are organized groups intending to push an agenda that does NOT equal (in general) protection of individual freedoms, just the opposite, they want to exercise power, not release it - so they both are primarily collectivists by design. that's the irony


Unless you're just buying into the partisan stereotypes, but I think you're smarter than that


of course i'm smarter than that (and modest, too), which is why I put "liberal" in quotes.

In recent years, the candidates who identify themselves as liberal or "democrat" or what have you, are *usually* the ones who seem to be more in favor of individual liberty in areas that I care most about. I;m gonna utter a political blasphemy here: Personally, the economy (gov't spending, etc) isn't a make or break issue for me like it is for the majority of people. Honestly, I don't care. I know from experience how government appropriations works, and i'm realistic about it, which leads to my complete apathy. I vote on social issues. call me idealistic, a hippy, a granola, but i'm a social liberal and if a candidate comes in and tells me he/she is anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, anti-gay marriage, etc...well, he/she doesn't get my vote.

That being said, I would vote for Gary Johnson had he not been completely marginalized by the media, for example, even though he doesn't identify as Liberal or democrat.

This is also why you rarely see me post in "economy" threads, but i'm all over the gay marriage, environmental, abortion, etc threads.

Also, I'm not so naive that I don't understand that they are all tied together. I know that. I just pick my arguments. :P
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks to you and dave. Billvon, I think, sees where I am going.

These are all subjective. What is good for one is not for another. As bill said, the pro Prop 8 people honestly FEEL that Prop 8 is for the common good.

I'm still most interested in funjumper's thoughts.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 53% who voted to assert their will on others did not benefit in any way that one could consider 'good' from a moral standpoint. Sure, they got to impose a restriction on membership in their ranks, but exclusivity is certainly no laudable demonstration of virtue.



see, my caviat is an important one here - the whole " (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others)"

the portion I quote above is a clear breakdown of individuals not valuing the individual rights of others


and.....again....they can certainly value their heterosexual marriage more than any other version and that might just be for the good of society depending on how that marriage progresses. The problem was legislating (forcing) their restriction on those that disagree. Again, government was the issue.

...
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
I'd like to offer another slant on this:

Context is merely the government involvement - I really don't care one bit about the religious or emotional content of the institution here - that's not what's this is about - for those that are, they really don't get it.

anyway


We have here a group of people - traditionally married people. And each of these individuals, get to have "special" rights and considerations (and penalties) from the government.

We have here another group of people - those that wish to have those same 'special' considerations for pairing up in non-traditional ways.

I think the focus is completely wrong - this issue is this:

why, just because, I'm married, do I get a different treatment from government compared to someone that's single?



the issue isn't the another group wants to enjoy special treatment ALSO

the issue is that there is a group of people that get special treatment


government shouldn't be in the business of marriage - period. It's a nation of individuals. If you are married, partnered, roommates, etc - the government should be blind to that


frankly, if any two people, for ANY reason want to establish a contract for: sharing property, ability to make decisions for the other when the other is incapacitated, inheritance, sharing income, etc - that can be contracted. The government has no business trying to 'encourage' anything. Let the individuals decide for themselves and let each individual have the same rights regardless of any type of status.

...
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

Thanks to you and dave. Billvon, I think, sees where I am going.



My favorite part of this discussion is the fact that we (you, me, rehmwa, billvon, and wolfriverjoe) pretty much agree on the important part, it's the details we're discussing. Well, that, and the compulsory name-calling for disagreement in speaker's corner has been oddly absent. I mean who are we to point out that rehmwa is a doodie-head. In any case, I do think I see where you are going, I'm just arguing semantics. ;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I vote on social issues. call me idealistic, a hippy, a granola, but i'm a social liberal and if a candidate comes in and tells me he/she is anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, anti-gay marriage, etc...well, he/she doesn't get my vote.



The only item in there I'd call a "social" issues is environment.

I'd call the rest, individual rights issues.

At the very least, I'd split the whole social issue pie into:

1 - those that reflect infringement of the government on an individuals equal rights (this area I'm fully in agreement that we must defend it).

2 - those that actually impose your will onto others - don't tell me what kind of light bulb to buy. Government should bugger off.


it's pretty easy to split that list (though typically someone smug will split some hairs here in a self congratulatory fashion).

...
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

My favorite part of this discussion is the fact that we (you, me, rehmwa, billvon, and wolfriverjoe) pretty much agree on the important part, it's the details we're discussing. Well, that, and the compulsory name-calling for disagreement in speaker's corner has been oddly absent. I mean who are we to point out that rehmwa is a doodie-head. In any case, I do think I see where you are going, I'm just arguing semantics. ;)



Just wait - last time I brought up the whole point that the real issue is that Marriage itself is actually the true unequal rights issue - some hot head decided for me that I MUST be so against gay marriage that I'd rather just trash the entire benefit system than see anyone else get in on the goodies

you and your ilk know this - you can tell buy the smell

...
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
I've long maintained the exact same opinion as you. First and foremost, partnership just shouldn't matter. Some here (including lawrocket if I remember correctly) have pointed out that governmental recognition of marriage dramatically simplifies the legal process associated with a wide variety of matters, including paternity, post-death division of assets, dissolution of said partnerships, etc. The example lawrocket has used is the relative ease of 'lawyering' a divorce vs the dissolution of a civil partnership. OK, I seem some merit in government involvement here. One of the fundamental responsibilities of government is to care for those who can't care for themselves. If a partnership between a gainfully employed person and a stay-at-home parent dissolves, I think having some standard practices on the books is better than letting the person with money steamroll the person with none.

That said, I'd be ok with government involvement being limited to these sorts of scenarios. I still think taxation and benefits should be blind to partnering status. If only churches did marriages (which the government didn't even care about), and the government only recognized "civil unions" and was blind to this status except for streamlining how each should care for/be protected from the other, that's be an acceptable substitute. However even that isn't what's being proposed, and the argument has been made that achieving this would be a VERY lengthy process. OK, uncle...if we can't get the government out of the business, let's at least make them treat everyone equally.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However even that isn't what's being proposed, and the argument has been made that achieving this would be a VERY lengthy process. OK, uncle...if we can't get the government out of the business, let's at least make them treat everyone equally.



And that right there is really the point. I couldn't agree more that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only recognize civil unions. I would fully support making that change. I don't see that happening anytime soon and until it does then everyone needs to be treated equally. To say one classification is allowed the legal recognition and another is not is nothing more than discrimination.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

However even that isn't what's being proposed, and the argument has been made that achieving this would be a VERY lengthy process. OK, uncle...if we can't get the government out of the business, let's at least make them treat everyone equally.



And that right there is really the point. I couldn't agree more that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only recognize civil unions. I would fully support making that change. I don't see that happening anytime soon and until it does then everyone needs to be treated equally. To say one classification is allowed the legal recognition and another is not is nothing more than discrimination.



Since this is a semantics barrier to doing the right thing, then we just hijack the word "marriage" (for governmental applications only) and then just assign all the 'domestic partner' rights to it. Delete the old marriage stuff completely.

Then we're not just adding another subgroup to the special privilege class of "married people".

Let's do the complete right thing and allow ANY two citizens to establish a legal partnership - we can call it "marriage".

two spinster sisters that have no one else
two roommates that carpool
various relatives
two strangers that just need someone to speak for them

I'm serious - the real issue is about individual's rights. If two people want to contractually decide to support each other and share resources, then why shouldn't they?

This let's everybody win.


a 'social' marriage can be a private or religious (if they are so inclined) affair for any two individuals that want to profess emotional commitment to each other in front of their friends and family - since it's private, then the government would have ZERO business obstructing that at all.

...
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

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