Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='Access_Denied']This is just my opinion, but, shouldn't the church control all this? I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church. If they want to control it, let them. We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
...ummm...we already have. You know you can get married without ever setting foot in a church or other religious setting, right?
 
[quote name='Clak']...ummm...we already have. You know you can get married without ever setting foot in a church or other religious setting, right?[/QUOTE]

Not if you're gay you can't, and that's my point. Have it so anybody can get 'married', but call it something different so the church can't bitch and put claims on it.
 
I don't think you understand my point, marriage is only connected to religion if you believe it is, at least in the U.S.. Marriage already is a legal matter in this country, you can do it without the need for any representative of a religion being present. If churches don't want to perform the ceremonies, fine, they can just go to a justice of the peace.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church.[/QUOTE]

Except that it wasn't. So there goes your premise.

[quote name='Access_Denied']We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

This exists, and religious types *still* object to same-sex civil unions, proving that their interest in "protecting the sanctity of marriage" is all smoke and mirrors. Oh, and separate-but-equal solves no problems.

[quote name='Clak']I don't think you understand my point, marriage is only connected to religion if you believe it is, at least in the U.S.. Marriage already is a legal matter in this country, you can do it without the need for any representative of a religion being present. If churches don't want to perform the ceremonies, fine, they can just go to a justice of the peace.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Not if you're gay you can't, and that's my point. Have it so anybody can get 'married', but call it something different so the church can't bitch and put claims on it.[/QUOTE]

We already have that separation (Separation of Church & State).

However, we have integrated marriage so deeply into our society that many people forget that marriage in itself is both a religion ceremony and a state function.

As far as I'm concerned however, this is a very simple and easily rectifiable issue:

As per the Constitution on either a Federal or State level, the state must treat all of its citizens equally. In short, it must grant marriage licenses (and all associated state benefits) to any pair of consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The church however, may grant marriage ceremonies to whomever they see fit, and may refuse such a ceremony to anyone whom they view do not align with their religious beliefs (which in turn, may explain why we don't hear of too many churches performing the marriage ceremonies of opposing faiths).

The problem today lies in the idea that far too many people have, in that "church = state" when it comes to deciding who can get married and who can't, and that is not the case. A church has zero congressional authority at either the state or federal level (officially), and as such cannot determine the rights of individual citizens.

~HotShotX
 
The defense presented virtually no case. They called two witnesses, both of whom said VERY little more than "teh gays r bad mmmmk".

The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...
Jesus H. You couldn't find a more company man Republican judge if you caught him giving hand jobs in an airport bathroom.
 
If California's lawyers were smart, repeat, WERE SMART, they could get this ruling thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

But yeah, Supreme Court, blah blah blah.
 
I really hope this makes it to the Supreme Court. I can't wait for some official ruling to smack the hammer down on crap like this.
 
[quote name='Clak']:rofl: That's just the icing on the cake. Notice that's completely missing from the fox article above.[/QUOTE]

It's natural that they'd overlook him being a Republican or a Reagan nominee, since they're typically unconcerned with either of those two things.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I really hope this makes it to the Supreme Court. I can't wait for some official ruling to smack the hammer down on crap like this.[/QUOTE]

The probability this makes it to the Supreme Court is 100%. Even if they uphold the ruling (remember, it'll be 5-4 either way because, well, you know...) California (or some other state) will do something else, and it'll be much harsher than you think.
 
The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting regardless of the outcome, since someone is actually going to have to write an argument for prop 8. Theres no way that wont be hilarious.
 
The defense will be the majority voted and that should be it. There will be some other references to a Christian nation and all the other crap we hear when religious dogma gets mixed up with politics.
 
I read the ruling last night, absolute gold. The judge completely wrecked the defense's witnesses for their contradicting statements.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I read the ruling last night, absolute gold. The judge completely wrecked the defense's witnesses for their contradicting statements.[/QUOTE]

Yep. The defense brought an absolute shitshow to court and now they're appalled they didn't uphold the outcome of the vote.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's natural that they'd overlook him being a Republican or a Reagan nominee, since they're typically unconcerned with either of those two things.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know, but it would also be an embarrassment to conservatives, and even if they did usually mention it, I doubt they would have then. Better to let people assume he must be a liberal activist then one of the boys.
 
[quote name='Brownjohn']Apparently voting no longer matters.[/QUOTE]

That's my confusion with it. If it was unconstitutional, then why was it ever raised as a measure? Whether I were on the winning or losing side of a vote, I'd be a bit peeved knowing that the State allowed me to vote on a measure, then once the outcome occurred months later a judge says your vote was worthless.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If California's lawyers were smart, repeat, WERE SMART, they could get this ruling thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

But yeah, Supreme Court, blah blah blah.[/QUOTE]

California declined to contest the lawsuit. Despite the state being listed as the respondent, the people arguing for Prop 8 were the same group who originally campaigned to put it on the ballot.

[quote name='berzirk']That's my confusion with it. If it was unconstitutional, then why was it ever raised as a measure? Whether I were on the winning or losing side of a vote, I'd be a bit peeved knowing that the State allowed me to vote on a measure, then once the outcome occurred months later a judge says your vote was worthless.[/QUOTE]

Part of the message of this ruling was that voters shouldn't have the right to vote on curtailing the civil rights of their fellow citizens without a compelling reason, which was found spectacularly lacking in this case. Bigotry is not a sufficient reason it turns out.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']We already have that separation (Separation of Church & State).

However, we have integrated marriage so deeply into our society that many people forget that marriage in itself is both a religion ceremony and a state function.

As far as I'm concerned however, this is a very simple and easily rectifiable issue:

As per the Constitution on either a Federal or State level, the state must treat all of its citizens equally. In short, it must grant marriage licenses (and all associated state benefits) to any pair of consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The church however, may grant marriage ceremonies to whomever they see fit, and may refuse such a ceremony to anyone whom they view do not align with their religious beliefs (which in turn, may explain why we don't hear of too many churches performing the marriage ceremonies of opposing faiths).

The problem today lies in the idea that far too many people have, in that "church = state" when it comes to deciding who can get married and who can't, and that is not the case. A church has zero congressional authority at either the state or federal level (officially), and as such cannot determine the rights of individual citizens.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]
I agree with this notion. It still seems that the church influences the way society thinks, and that is something that may or may not help lead to tolerance. Also, gay couples about to be wed don't need to be married in a church; all they need is a licensed marriage officiant that has been issued a license by the government
 
Almost forgot about that justice of the peace who refused to marry that interracial couple, I'm sure you'd have some refuse to wed a gay couple too.
 
[quote name='bvharris']

Part of the message of this ruling was that voters shouldn't have the right to vote on curtailing the civil rights of their fellow citizens without a compelling reason, which was found spectacularly lacking in this case. Bigotry is not a sufficient reason it turns out.[/QUOTE]

Is it a civil right to be married to whoever you want, wherever you want? I truly don't know. Also, I would suspect that if this case goes to the Supreme Court it's not going to be because a couple of fringe weirdos are afraid of the gay, but rather because there was a compelling reason for this to be contested further.
 
Quick question, since I can't be arsed to read 82 pages: Is Bob for gay marriage? Or against it?

I need to know whether he's the crazy person in this topic.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Is it a civil right to be married to whoever you want, wherever you want? I truly don't know. Also, I would suspect that if this case goes to the Supreme Court it's not going to be because a couple of fringe weirdos are afraid of the gay, but rather because there was a compelling reason for this to be contested further.[/QUOTE]

And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"
 
That's all it is nation-wide. Minus the fringe, of course.

The compelling reason is that there are a lot of weirdos afraid of the gay.
 
[quote name='bvharris']And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"[/QUOTE]

I'm no legal expert, nor am I involved with any political group for or against gay marriage, but to me, if a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's probably for a fairly valid reason.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I'm no legal expert, nor am I involved with any political group for or against gay marriage, but to me, if a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's probably for a fairly valid reason.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. If it makes it to the supreme court, it's because enough people are screaming. Whether there's any validity on either side is irrelevant.
 
If there is a compelling reason, it would have been (well, should have been) presented in the court trial.

Given Judge Walker's numerous and blistering statements of fact, dipshit Republicans couldn't even gain the sympathy of a Republican, Reagan-nominee judge, let alone anything resembling agreement with their claims.

EDIT: dorino is right. an appeal is simply that; an appeal. doesn't have to be grounded in anything coherent. given Walker's ruling and the coherence of his ruling, i wouldn't be too surprised if the supreme court refused to even hear this case. they *will* because of political pressure, but given how solid the case that prop 8 is unconstitutional is, and how dismally inept, dishonest, and full of conjecture and presumptuousness the defense was, this is not a case that needs to be represented or reheard.
 
To me that valid reason will be that the ruling is just and deserves to be the law of the land. I'm not saying that will be the reason they hear it (which I'm sure they will), but that's what the result should be.
 
[quote name='dorino']Not necessarily. If it makes it to the supreme court, it's because enough people are screaming. Whether there's any validity on either side is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

When has that happened before? Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious to hear a time where a lot of people screaming made the Supreme Court hear a case they wouldn't have otherwise.
 
This time, for one. I could go digging myself, but it's really not worth it. There have been ridiculous supreme court cases, heard for no reason other than unwarranted outcry.
 
I heard on NPR that there may be a good reason to keep Prop 8 as is until the 9th Circuit hears it. Apparently if Walker overturns it immediately, the Prop 8 supporters can appeal directly and immediately to the SCOTUS. This would mean that they would interrupt Kennedy's vacation, and he is undoubtedly the deciding vote in this case.

Kinda sad that you'd keep a law because you don't want to make a judge angry, but I guess if this is what it takes...
 
I'm on a train outside San Luis Obispo on a temporary network while on vacation, and this is the only thread I wanted to show up in.
 
[quote name='bvharris']And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"[/QUOTE]

Why else would you ban gay marriage? Why else would you ban a practice that has zero effect on your marriage or how the state treats you? At this point, God hates gays is getting pretty fringe.
 
I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume you're alluding to rumors that Kagan herself is gay. Even if that were true, I don't see how it would matter one way or the other to her ability to hear the case.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not saying she /should/.

But, to keep appearances fair, I could see the issue coming up.[/QUOTE]
What appearances? What issue?

edit: you can't be serious.

no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Gays, please go sit in the corner and be quiet. Straights are going to decide your rights over her.
 
[quote name='bvharris']I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume you're alluding to rumors that Kagan herself is gay. Even if that were true, I don't see how it would matter one way or the other to her ability to hear the case.[/QUOTE]

That is like saying the straight justices should recuse themselves in case of bias.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, I'm not saying she should.

But my random musings on CAG won't be the only place you'll hear about this, I'm willing to bet.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree with that. Fox News still exists after all.

But the fact that you're bringing it up suggests you think it's a legitimate question, which it isn't.
 
Everybody knows Scalia is a bear, so you'd have seven votes to work with.

Any - *ANY* -

A
N
Y

suggestion that Kagan can not judge fairly, like any suggestion the Reagan-nominated Republican Walker was not able to judge fairly, is precisely why the right in this country is the subject of derision.

The right insists upon having legal parity on this issue, yet the Walker ruling (read it if you dare, read it if you can) shows that the right - those who supported upholding Prop 8 - don't know how to prepare, present, or defend anything resembling a coherent legal argument.

This is not a legal matter of two equally valid viewpoints - that's precisely Walker's case. His point is that what was legal was preposterous and unsupportable by the tenets of our nation. This is the Harlem Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals.

You don't even have to read Walker's ruling - because let's be honest, you're afraid to read it and discover a legal argument you disagree with, yet one you can't actually argue against - to realize how vapid the pro-prop 8 crowd is. Simply put, at no point has anyone against gay marriage put forth a coherent, valid argument as to why it should be illegal, other than to say that it garnered the necessary votes to pass (which is hardly the issue).

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Simply put, at no point has anyone against gay marriage put forth a coherent, valid argument as to why it should be illegal, other than to say that it garnered the necessary votes to pass (which is hardly the issue).[/QUOTE]

qft. Though I'm wildly liberal (duh) on every issue, I can at least see a valid other viewpoint on most issues, but not in this case. You're either in favor of equal rights or you're a bigot. There's no third option.
 
There is a reason that often people are against equal rights for gays: It's not necessarily bigotry, but it's simply upbringing and ignorance.

That's still no excuse.
 
I think someone mentioned this but if being gay means you're biased in a gay marriage case, wouldn't being straight mean you're biased as well?

Antonin Scalia loves to shoot thing with guns. Does this mean he might want to recuse himself in 2nd Amendment cases? Just saying. Appearances and such.

non-issue. I'm fairly confident Kennedy will be the 5th vote agreeing with Walker's ruling to overturn Prop 8. Walker's opinion borrowed a lot from Kennedy's opinions, which is definitely a good thing.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think someone mentioned this but if being gay means you're biased in a gay marriage case, wouldn't being straight mean you're biased as well?[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.
 
[quote name='Brownjohn']Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Those in favor have spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince those opposed that allowing same-sex marriages won't effect them - so asking heterosexual individuals to recuse themselves would be self-defeating.

But, obviously, the ruling in this case will have a direct effect on the opportunities Kagen will have open to her (if the rumors are true).

Now, I don't think she should recuse herself. In fact, I'd just prefer the Supreme Court decline to hear the case altogether, upholding the lower court's correct ruling. However, if the case does make it's way there, I can assure you, you'll be hearing more about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top