California High Court to Rule on Gay Marriage

[Paddington]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

You're sort of missing the point of the USSC decision. It wasn't about whether or not it was considered a 'marriage'. The fundamental right established by Loving is the right of someone to marry the person of their choosing.

What's really missing from the federal level right now is the establishment of homosexuals as a 'protected class'. Once they get that (and they most certainly will in the relatively near future) it will be impossible for the courts to deny same sex marriage across the US. It's simply a matter of time.

That's why I'm starting to get tired of these arguments, not only does everyone just repeat themselves (and people throw out ridiculous arguments) but it really doesn't matter. Pro-gay people have already won, it's only a question of when.

The recent history of gay marriage being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in multiple states would seem to counteract that position. Also, the courts know that if they pull a Roe vs. Wade on this, it will setup a gigantic political fight that will continue for decades if not indefinitely.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: dali71


And until the SCOTUS overturns Baker v. Nelson, state governments can ban same-sex marriages without violating the Constitution. Let's see how long that takes...

Looking at the Baker v Nelson rationale it shouldn't be too hard to argue that it should be overturned.

- The purpose of marriage is procreation (yeah....we've heard that before)
- The legislature didn't explicit outlaw gay marriage but that doesn't translate to granting gays the right.... wtf?

Hell we've had these very same arguments in AT P&N and they just don't stand up to logic/reason

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This merely sets the challenge to go to the USSC where it will be decided by a predominantly conservative court.

This will not go to the USSC!!

 

[Chaotic42]

The government should just stay out of marriage completely. Have any benefits tailored to a prime "partner" or spread out amongst partners in a polygamist marriage. If two, three, fifteen adults want to get married, it's no one's business but their own.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government should just stay out of marriage completely. Have any benefits tailored to a prime "partner" or spread out amongst partners in a polygamist marriage. If two, three, fifteen adults want to get married, it's no one's business but their own.

But what about tax [federal, state, etc] implications, benefits, etc? It's easier to just let 2 people to have their souls legal bound and owned by the government.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm with chaotic42 on this one. This is an area where the government shouldn't have been involved in the first place. Government should only have become involved in order to limit discrimination.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

You're sort of missing the point of the USSC decision. It wasn't about whether or not it was considered a 'marriage'. The fundamental right established by Loving is the right of someone to marry the person of their choosing.

What's really missing from the federal level right now is the establishment of homosexuals as a 'protected class'. Once they get that (and they most certainly will in the relatively near future) it will be impossible for the courts to deny same sex marriage across the US. It's simply a matter of time.

That's why I'm starting to get tired of these arguments, not only does everyone just repeat themselves (and people throw out ridiculous arguments) but it really doesn't matter. Pro-gay people have already won, it's only a question of when.

The recent history of gay marriage being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in multiple states would seem to counteract that position. Also, the courts know that if they pull a Roe vs. Wade on this, it will setup a gigantic political fight that will continue for decades if not indefinitely.

Not at all actually. If you look at public polling on gay marriage you will see a rapid increase in support for it over the last 10 years, and more importantly overwhelming support for it with people under 30. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

The anti-gay movement is doomed. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

You're sort of missing the point of the USSC decision. It wasn't about whether or not it was considered a 'marriage'. The fundamental right established by Loving is the right of someone to marry the person of their choosing.

What's really missing from the federal level right now is the establishment of homosexuals as a 'protected class'. Once they get that (and they most certainly will in the relatively near future) it will be impossible for the courts to deny same sex marriage across the US. It's simply a matter of time.

That's why I'm starting to get tired of these arguments, not only does everyone just repeat themselves (and people throw out ridiculous arguments) but it really doesn't matter. Pro-gay people have already won, it's only a question of when.

The recent history of gay marriage being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in multiple states would seem to counteract that position. Also, the courts know that if they pull a Roe vs. Wade on this, it will setup a gigantic political fight that will continue for decades if not indefinitely.

Try looking at the recent history a little closer. While gay marriage has been rejected by voters in multiple states, it's far from "overwhelming" (the California vote was 55% to 45%). But the really interesting thing is if you go a bit farther back, when similar votes really did achieve an overwhelming majority of people voting anti-gay. The change in about a decade is HUGE, unless public opinion stops moving in the pro-gay direction (and there is no reason to think it will), within 10 years California could hold another vote and the side in favor of legalizing gay marriage would win in a landslide. Part of this is demographics, since younger people overwhelmingly support gay rights, but part of it is that gay rights in general are a relatively new thing. Outside of marriage, they've made HUGE strides in being treated equal to their straight peers, marriage is the next logical step.

Yeah, right here, right now, you win. But all the facts point to it being a pretty fleeting victory.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

At the very least could you argue your position without making sweeping (and wrong) generalizations? I'm part of the public, and a straight person at that, and I'm pissed off that people want to prevent gay people from getting married. In California, 45% of the people agree with me...stop trying to make it sound like a fringe issue that only belongs to homosexuals. Plenty of straight people support their views as well...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

At the very least could you argue your position without making sweeping (and wrong) generalizations? I'm part of the public, and a straight person at that, and I'm pissed off that people want to prevent gay people from getting married. In California, 45% of the people agree with me...stop trying to make it sound like a fringe issue that only belongs to homosexuals. Plenty of straight people support their views as well...

It was actually 52-48. Even closer than you thought.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Not at all actually. If you look at public polling on gay marriage you will see a rapid increase in support for it over the last 10 years, and more importantly overwhelming support for it with people under 30. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

The anti-gay movement is doomed. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, it really doesn't matter.

I wonder what will happen first. The demographics of the states changing enough that the individual states will legalize same sex marriage or SCOTUS changing in composition enough so that homosexuals will be listed as a protected class. Additionally, I wonder if SCOTUS would give them strict scrutiny or would they try to lower it down to the intermediate scrutiny level to lessen the controversy. Any thoughts?

 

[sportage]

An article on CNN says this is going to the "US supreme court".
If that goes, its a done deal across the US.
Look out Hicks Ville.
Them thar homo's will be holding hands in public.

Some gay groups say or warn its too soon to do a US supreme court thing.
But I don't agree.
Remember, when this issue goes before law, same sex marriage most always
wins the day. In little old bible belt iowa it was 100% unamious IA supreme court ruling
for same sex.
And there were both republicans and republican appointed justices on the IA SP court.

WHen it comes down to law and civil rights, the gays will always win.

WHat happened in CA tuesday was NOT a gay same sex ruling.
It was the courts ruling on whether or not CA voters could change the CA constitution. If it was valid process.
And it was...

That was a CA constitution vs voters ballot thing, NOT a gay same sex thing.
It could have easily been a challenge to a tax law or workers comp law or whatever
that was passed by a voter ballot to amend the CA constitution.
The CA court just reaffirmed the voters do have the power to vote on CA constitutional
amendment change. THats all...

Usually and normally a states constitution is only amended by legislative action over two
sessions passing by no less than 2/3 rd's a vote each session BEFORE going to the public for a ballot vote.
But every ten years, state voters have the opportunity to change how their states
constitution is amended, tweaked or tinkered with.
CA voters, at some time past, must have voted to do this. To allow a simple ballot vote
and bypass the legislature process.
Maybe it was because CA voters were mad at the CA legislation? Or taxes? Or who remembers?

But... in doing so THEN... they set it up for prop 8 to have even see the day of light.
Otherwise, prop8 would have never succeeded.
It would have died in the CA legislature waiting for two secessions with a passing of at least 2/3 rd's a vote.
Constitutional amendment laws usually NEVER get thru the two secession legislation, especially in needing that 2/3 rd's vote for passage
That is why state constitutions very seldom get amended.

Any Gay or same sex supporter that voted back then to change the way their CA constitution works, without knowing it back them, was just shooting themselves in the foot.
It came back to bite them in the butt.

As to an US supreme court challenge??? That will go with law and civil rights, and Gays will win.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sportage
An article on CNN says this is going to the "US supreme court".
If that goes, its a done deal across the US.
Look out Hicks Ville.
Them thar homo's will be holding hands in public.

Some gay groups say or warn its too soon to do a US supreme court thing.
But I don't agree.
Remember, when this issue goes before law, same sex marriage most always
wins the day. In little old bible belt iowa it was 100% unamious IA supreme court ruling
for same sex.
And there were both republicans and republican appointed justices on the IA SP court.

WHen it comes down to law and civil rights, the gays will always win.

WHat happened in CA tuesday was NOT a gay same sex ruling.
It was the courts ruling on whether or not CA voters could change the CA constitution. If it was valid process.
And it was...

That was a CA constitution vs voters ballot thing, NOT a gay same sex thing.
It could have easily been a challenge to a tax law or workers comp law or whatever
that was passed by a voter ballot to amend the CA constitution.
The CA court just reaffirmed the voters do have the power to vote on CA constitutional
amendment change. THats all...

Usually and normally a states constitution is only amended by legislative action over two
sessions passing by no less than 2/3 rd's a vote each session BEFORE going to the public for a ballot vote.
But every ten years, state voters have the opportunity to change how their states
constitution is amended, tweaked or tinkered with.
CA voters, at some time past, must have voted to do this. To allow a simple ballot vote
and bypass the legislature process.
Maybe it was because CA voters were mad at the CA legislation? Or taxes? Or who remembers?

But... in doing so THEN... they set it up for prop 8 to have even see the day of light.
Otherwise, prop8 would have never succeeded.
It would have died in the CA legislature waiting for two secessions with a passing of at least 2/3 rd's a vote.
Constitutional amendment laws usually NEVER get thru the two secession legislation, especially in needing that 2/3 rd's vote for passage
That is why state constitutions very seldom get amended.

Any Gay or same sex supporter that voted back then to change the way their CA constitution works, without knowing it back them, was just shooting themselves in the foot.
It came back to bite them in the butt.

As to an US supreme court challenge??? That will go with law and civil rights, and Gays will win.

The makeup of the current SCOTUS would not be favorable to finding homosexuals as belonging to a suspect class. Even during Lawrence v. Texas, the court held back on finding homosexuals as a class deserving of heightened scrutiny. The lawyers have been wise to keep this issue out of the SCOTUS and currently it's generating enough attention through the states that many of the states are dealing with the issue without taking it to SCOTUS. Nothing good would come from facing Scalia and homosexual rights.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

The makeup of the current SCOTUS would not be favorable to finding homosexuals as belonging to a suspect class. Even during Lawrence v. Texas, the court held back on finding homosexuals as a class deserving of heightened scrutiny. The lawyers have been wise to keep this issue out of the SCOTUS and currently it's generating enough attention through the states that many of the states are dealing with the issue without taking it to SCOTUS. Nothing good would come from facing Scalia and homosexual rights.

A case has been filed, over the objections of gay advocates.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Paddington
I wasn't around in the 1950's, but I'm not sure if there was ever a fundamental disagreement over whether a mixed-race marriage was in fact a marriage, only that it shouldn't be allowed. There was no redefinition of marriage on a dictionary level, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it's a key part of the issue, IMO. With the current "gay marriage" controversy, gays are angry that the public is not acknowledging their "same sex marriage" and are violating their "rights". But in the eyes of the public, a "same sex marriage" has not in fact been established, and therefore no "right" is violated.

You're sort of missing the point of the USSC decision. It wasn't about whether or not it was considered a 'marriage'. The fundamental right established by Loving is the right of someone to marry the person of their choosing.

What's really missing from the federal level right now is the establishment of homosexuals as a 'protected class'. Once they get that (and they most certainly will in the relatively near future) it will be impossible for the courts to deny same sex marriage across the US. It's simply a matter of time.

That's why I'm starting to get tired of these arguments, not only does everyone just repeat themselves (and people throw out ridiculous arguments) but it really doesn't matter. Pro-gay people have already won, it's only a question of when.

The recent history of gay marriage being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in multiple states would seem to counteract that position. Also, the courts know that if they pull a Roe vs. Wade on this, it will setup a gigantic political fight that will continue for decades if not indefinitely.

Not at all actually. If you look at public polling on gay marriage you will see a rapid increase in support for it over the last 10 years, and more importantly overwhelming support for it with people under 30. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

The anti-gay movement is doomed. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, it really doesn't matter.

Which is evidenced by this ruling

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government should just stay out of marriage completely. Have any benefits tailored to a prime "partner" or spread out amongst partners in a polygamist marriage. If two, three, fifteen adults want to get married, it's no one's business but their own.

But what about tax [federal, state, etc] implications, benefits, etc? It's easier to just let 2 people to have their souls legal bound and owned by the government.

Like I said, you either give the benefits to one person (wife 1) or you spread them out equally (Wife 1 gets 50%, wife 2 gets 50%). It may be a little more work, but the insurance/whatever companies should be able to work it out.

As far as taxes, you should pay your own taxes. Your tax should only change when you have kids, and in that case I'd like to see it go up.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Which is evidenced by this ruling

I find this a much more compelling event on current trends of acceptance:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._us/us_male_prom_queen

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Not at all actually. If you look at public polling on gay marriage you will see a rapid increase in support for it over the last 10 years, and more importantly overwhelming support for it with people under 30. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

The anti-gay movement is doomed. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, it really doesn't matter.

Which is evidenced by this ruling

The ruling has nothing to do with his comment on the increasing support for gay marriage.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This merely sets the challenge to go to the USSC where it will be decided by a predominantly conservative court.

This will not go to the USSC!!

It's now in the federal courts, as my post showed. I see no reason the lawyers involved and the opposition won't appeal it to the Supreme Court.

 

[jonks]

lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...er-dragg_n_208772.html

The AP's Christina Hoag reports that Brenda Lee, a reporter for the Georgia Informer, was dragged kicking and screaming from the press area near Air Force One at Los Angeles International airport (LAX) Thursday morning.

"Airport security officers carried the woman away by the feet and arms as she protested her removal," Hoag writes.

The Georgia Informer describes itself as "a black newspaper for Georgia."

KTLA reports that Lee is a self-proclaimed "Roman Catholic priestess." Lee claims she was attempting to deliver President Obama a letter urging him "to take a stand for traditional marriage."



video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6xStVun3bM

 

[redgtxdi]

Up is down.

Down is up.

Guys are girls.

Girls are guys.


Don't tell anybody what they can or cannot do socially, religiously, politically, biologically, ethically, publicly, privately, visually, audibly, etc. etc. etc. etc.........


The bigotry in this bigotted world is bigotry to the bigots!!

:laugh:

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: glutenberg

The makeup of the current SCOTUS would not be favorable to finding homosexuals as belonging to a suspect class. Even during Lawrence v. Texas, the court held back on finding homosexuals as a class deserving of heightened scrutiny. The lawyers have been wise to keep this issue out of the SCOTUS and currently it's generating enough attention through the states that many of the states are dealing with the issue without taking it to SCOTUS. Nothing good would come from facing Scalia and homosexual rights.

A case has been filed, over the objections of gay advocates.

Well, at least it won't be until the next SCOTUS term so hopefully there will be some progress maybe in more of the states that will pressure the current SCOTUS composition into finding a heightened scrutiny. Worst case scenario will be Scalia convincing the rest that homosexuals only deserve a rational basis level of scrutiny.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Up is down.

Down is up.

Guys are girls.

Girls are guys.


Don't tell anybody what they can or cannot do socially, religiously, politically, biologically, ethically, publicly, privately, visually, audibly, etc. etc. etc. etc.........


The bigotry in this bigotted world is bigotry to the bigots!!

:laugh:

"About 5% of people are gay" translates to "boys are girls" to you? You breath through your mouth a lot, don't you?

 

[sportage]

Does it matter?
That is, failure in the US Sup Court?
I don?t believe it would change state laws in
the states that now allow same sex marriage.

And all the same sex proponents would have to do after a loss,
is simply wait a while until the US Sup Court is more pro the idea.

Like with abortion. The court passed R vs W,
but abortion rights supporters fear another court challenge
if the court goes too conservative.

In other words, the ruling on both matters can be challenged
over and over.
So what is the risk?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sportage
Does it matter?
That is, failure in the US Sup Court?
I don?t believe it would change state laws in
the states that now allow same sex marriage.

And all the same sex proponents would have to do after a loss,
is simply wait a while until the US Sup Court is more pro the idea.

Like with abortion. The court passed R vs W,
but abortion rights supporters fear another court challenge
if the court goes too conservative.

In other words, the ruling on both matters can be challenged
over and over.
So what is the risk?

It takes alot to overturn precedent. Stare decisis is generally well respected even amongst the Supreme Court. If the current court was to say that the LGBTQ crowd is not a suspect class (based on characteristics like political power, minority statuts, immutable nature, etc.), then they will not be able to challenge based on heighted scrutiny when arguing on an equal protection theory. The reason why Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned for such a long period is specifically because of stare decisis. If no heightened scrutiny is found, then there will be future difficulties for the LGBTQs to challenge based upon equal protection in the future.

All in all, the states may ultimately change their state laws and allow for gay marriage but it will never be permanent. A state could always vote out that law. If the basis was Constitutional under equal protection or privileges and immunities, then the states would not be able to make laws abridging on gay rights. With Loving v. Virginia establishing marriage as a fundamental right and equal protection for gays, it would basically be the end of states disallowing homosexuals from the right to marriage.