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

[rehmwa 2]

we've degraded to the same ol' same ol' stuff. though Lawrocket's OP was about the legality of coming to the right decision was very interesting

I'm done. Sorry to tangent to stuff that's been hashed out so many other times.

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

The interesting thing is that while it's been rehashed, there is a change in circumstances due to this decision that may give another way of looking at it.

i know the "government should be out of marriage" is stale. even Doug Stanhope shelved that bit rom his routine. It is the saame species as the opponents of gay marriage who now are arguing the government has no business defining marriage (in Cali they had 150 years to raise that objection. They didn't until the definition changed. Too late)

But myself, I kinda like seeing where this goes... Hijackings can be interesting. Other times I don't like them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

But myself, I kinda like seeing where this goes... Hijackings can be interesting. Other times I don't like them.

I agree, and there has been some interesting discussion in this thread.

Just so I can be a little less confused about where you are going with your train of thought, would it be fair to say that you do not agree with the government providing for public education, and you do not agree with the government mandating environmental protections through the EPA? I can think of several other examples of "common good" services or protections, but those two will be a good start.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

arguing the government has no business defining marriage (in Cali they had 150 years to raise that objection. They didn't until the definition changed. Too late)

I don't think the "too late" argument is valid. Marriage was such a part of the language in the old form, I think this issue served to show the point that individuals in a marriage (of any kind) actually ARE being afforded a different set of rules over individuals not in a marriage.

That it wasn't noticed until then is simply inertia. There's a genesis to any argument.

We're just in phase one - expand the benefits to another group - and even further concentrate those left out. That'll work to highlight to single people even more that there's a more basic disparity at stake here.

It should be a nation of equal individuals, not a nation of preferenced groups.

Quote

opponents of gay marriage who now are arguing the government has no business defining marriage

For this - What about people like me - I not against gay marriage - I think recognizing it is better than the status quo - I just think the issue is more basic than that. I don't like the inference at all.

Also, how does that argument even work for those opposed? - it seems a better argument for the pro side, not the con side.....

...
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

[wmw999 2,119]

Quote

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

Actually, that brings up another point -- can a new-style government-only domestic partnership be limited as to span? I.e. you get married for a 5-year span, and then it's automatically dissolved? I'm not saying it to be a smartass, but it's something that will need to be thought out if we really divorce the concept of marriage from domestic partnership.

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)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

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

Actually, that brings up another point -- can a new-style government-only domestic partnership be limited as to span? I.e. you get married for a 5-year span, and then it's automatically dissolved? I'm not saying it to be a smartass, but it's something that will need to be thought out if we really divorce the concept of marriage from domestic partnership.

\

I would think so. It would just be a contract between two people that enables a (very reduced) list of partner benefits. Why not sign up for a 5, 10, or lifetime, contract?

Is it getting a bit Heinlein-ian in here?

...
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

[labrys 0]

Quote

Is it getting a bit Heinlein-ian in here?

I propose that we only allow veterans of federal service to vote on the subject of gay marriage.

Owned by Remi #?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

would it be fair to say that you do not agree with the government providing for public education

I think that leaving it to the states – where it was for the first 150 years of our union – would be fine. It would have many effects:
(1) It’d would make it easier for schools to adjust their curricula to address local issues. Say a school is having problems with its math levels. The lesser bureaucracy helps with it.
(2) It would be cheaper. Much cheaper. The level of recordkeeping and reporting is absolutely ridiculous. Out here we’ve got local, state and federal reporting requirements. Why are schools so administration heavy? Because of the reporting requirements necessary.
(3) There are costs, as in what if a school system fails? But there is also the opportunity for schools to try new things and ADVANCE education. Can’t do that if the government says, “You cant do that.”

Public education is a fine thing, and I don’t want to see kids left behind because parents cannot afford it. However, I believe that parents should be given the opportunity to explore schools other than those that the government tells them that their schools get.

It’s a fifty fifty issue to me.

Quote

and you do not agree with the government mandating environmental protections through the EPA?

I see some need and, growing up in the Los Angeles Metro, saw first-hand the benefits that came from cleaner air. On the other hand, I think the EPA moves from common issues like air and water to local issues like wetlands and the like. There are issues that can be easily handled by nuisance suits instead of the EPA.

Because the EPA is a political body, it makes decisions that allow nuisances to go forward AND can prevent anybody from doing anything about it. Picture James Watt. It takes the issue of nuisance away from the people being harmed and puts it into the hands of those who don’t have a stake in it.

Again – fifty fifty. The EPA should be responsible for those environmental matters in interstate commerce that the states themselves have not made agreements (states do it all the time). But the EPA moving in on an oil spill on a mountain road seems to be a bit much when state and local authorities can manage it and any damages that occur can be handled the way they’ve been handled for ages.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

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

Actually, that brings up another point -- can a new-style government-only domestic partnership be limited as to span? I.e. you get married for a 5-year span, and then it's automatically dissolved? I'm not saying it to be a smartass, but it's something that will need to be thought out if we really divorce the concept of marriage from domestic partnership.

Wendy P.

"Do I want a marriage license? Nah, I'm here for a learner's permit."

[lawrocket 3]

Hey hey hey!! It turns out that the Federal “No Child Left Behind” act just ain’t working out so well. Ten states are getting waivers for it. WOO HOO! How’s that for success?

Let’s hear it for federal involvement in education!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

>I take it then that you are happy that the court overturned the voters of CA?

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

Then you will be happy when Obama care is eliminated too

Good to know

The confusion between "rights" and "benefits" continues unabated...

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I think that leaving it to the states – where it was for the first 150 years of our union – would be fine. It would have many effects:
(1) It’d would make it easier for schools to adjust their curricula to address local issues. Say a school is having problems with its math levels. The lesser bureaucracy helps with it.
(2) It would be cheaper. Much cheaper. The level of recordkeeping and reporting is absolutely ridiculous. Out here we’ve got local, state and federal reporting requirements. Why are schools so administration heavy? Because of the reporting requirements necessary.
(3) There are costs, as in what if a school system fails? But there is also the opportunity for schools to try new things and ADVANCE education. Can’t do that if the government says, “You cant do that.”

Public education is a fine thing, and I don’t want to see kids left behind because parents cannot afford it. However, I believe that parents should be given the opportunity to explore schools other than those that the government tells them that their schools get.

It’s a fifty fifty issue to me.

Quote

and you do not agree with the government mandating environmental protections through the EPA?

I see some need and, growing up in the Los Angeles Metro, saw first-hand the benefits that came from cleaner air. On the other hand, I think the EPA moves from common issues like air and water to local issues like wetlands and the like. There are issues that can be easily handled by nuisance suits instead of the EPA.

Because the EPA is a political body, it makes decisions that allow nuisances to go forward AND can prevent anybody from doing anything about it. Picture James Watt. It takes the issue of nuisance away from the people being harmed and puts it into the hands of those who don’t have a stake in it.

Again – fifty fifty. The EPA should be responsible for those environmental matters in interstate commerce that the states themselves have not made agreements (states do it all the time). But the EPA moving in on an oil spill on a mountain road seems to be a bit much when state and local authorities can manage it and any damages that occur can be handled the way they’ve been handled for ages.

I guess we're pretty much in agreement then. I also did see the news about states opting out of NCLB, and I can't be too sad about that as I think it has pushed teaching to the test to disastrous levels. One adverse consequence of getting the Federal gov't completely out of education would be the end of Pell grants and much assistance in paying for advanced education, which would certainly further limit access at a time when much of the rest of the world is actively investing in the education of their population. It's already hard to find qualified Americans in many fields, and further restricting access to education wouldn't help America's competitive position in the world.

WRT the EPA, I think it's important to have uniformity in standards of how much a business (or individuals) can pollute communal resources. Otherwise, a state could seek to attract industry by lowering standards (and so costs) as long as the industry was located where river flow or prevailing winds would carry the pollution out of the state's borders, where it would become someone else's problem. I agree they don't have to get involved in every little local mishap, though.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[dorkitup 1]

Great picture I saw on this issue on the side of a building in NYC last summer.