Judge Strikes Down Calif. Marriage Law

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Personal attack:
You're an idiot
Bigot!

NOT a personal attack:
I doubt your source (assuming not person) is credible.
I disagree

 

[aidanjm]

nm

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Michael
Just for the record, I have more friends that are poly than I have friends who are gay (just my sister-in-law, and I went to her wedding ceremony). So Vic's point is not just slippery slope. Is the law going to be marriage is between and 2 people so more than 2 is out? Why is that fair to the poly minority?

Personally, I think being poly is a poor lifestyle choice, but why shouldn't they get the same rights as everyone else?

Michael

All people should be allowed to marry and without artificial limits.

It's their choice.

I'm sure there would be a harem of guys that would not mind being husband number 10 to Paris Hilton.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Eli
Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

No, it's not. The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage, therefore (under the 10th Amendment) marriage does not fall within the powers of the US government, and rights are transferred to the states and the people, respectively, to regulate it as they see fit.

You should read the document, Eli. I understand it's important

but the Constitution does address equal rights, at least for men. According to many conservatives, we didn't need the ERA for Women because it's implied or something.

So that leaves the court with explicit equal rightson some issues, and implied equal rights on others, so there is no reasonable way for a court to say a law that specifically discriminates as being constitutional.

As far as the issue of the election, surely no one wants the court system to render decisions based on election results ?!

 

[juiio]

Vic, there are multiple problems with your arguments.

First of all, if you were truely concerned about the slippery slope, then you're making the wrong argument. The slippery slope starts with the government being involved in marriage at all, not with homosexual marriages being allowed. You shouldn't be arguing against homosexual marriages, but rather against government marriages.

Second, I'm sure you don't really care about polygamists. Most of the time, polygamy is used as a crutch in this discussion, rather than a true concern. But just in case.... This about rights that a married couple has, that a committed homosexual couple cannot have. In broad examples, there are many rights at the time of death of one partner, if one partner is in the hospital, tax rights, etc. If polygamy was allowed, the system would be abused. Imagine, for example, a group of 10 polygamists that are all intramarried, and each count every other polygamist's child as a dependent. By not allowing polygamy, you aren't eliminating any rights. Any polygamist has the same rights as a non-polygamist, no matter who they first marry.

 

[aidanjm]

Judge In SF Gay Marriage Ruling No 'Liberal Activist Judge'

by David Kravets, Associated Press

March 15, 2005 11:02 am ET

(San Francisco, California) Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer, a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. (story)

"The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action lawsuit for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

©Associated Press 2005

 

[Darkhawk28]

At least the bigots in Missouri got it right.

They had the voters DEFINE THE WORD: Marriage. (As being between one man and one woman)

Saying "Gays can't marry" just like the idiots in LA is begging for a courtroom smackdown.

Edit: So for all you homophobes and closet homosexuals, use that tactic, it'd work better for ya.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

That argument only applies when seeking to change something. This is about maintaining the status quo.

For the record, I'm with Queasy on this issue. Government does not belong in the business of regulating marriage. But, if they're going to allow gay marriage, then they need to legalize polygamy, polyandry, and all the others as well.

As it is, what's next? Forcing Catholic churches to perform the gay marriage ceremonies? Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. Revoking the tax-exempt charter of those churches that refuse to perform gay marriages? After all, we're talking about "repression" here, right? God forbid we forget that Gay Americans are the wealthiest demographic per capita on Earth, let's compare them to the plight of black slaves before the Emancipation, and destroy all who oppose us! :roll:

I disagree on whether government belongs in marriage. The sticky point turns on when kids are involved. If they are, the government definitely has a hand in that because the welfare of the children must be looked after.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: conjur
"the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," sort of touches on it. It's going to come down to application of the 14th amendment when this finally reaches the SCOTUS one day.

As I see it, the 14th Amendment has no application in this case. Equal protection is not an issue. A gay man or woman can still marry a member of the opposite sex, so they have equal protection. The 14th Amendment was not constructed to ensure that one could have sex with whom one wants in a legally sanctioned manner.

Originally posted by: conjur
Care to point out where in the Constitution marriage is defined as between man and woman?

Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage is to offer a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, and a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights. The Constitution does not address the issue of marriage. That is an issue defined by the states. Ultimately, the purpose of marriage is for the welfare of the children.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus
I nominate you as the worst poster of the 21st century. The number of logical fallaciies is just staggering.

But only because you disagree with me, right?

No, he's right. Slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.

As is the fallacy of believing that it is possible to have an intelligent conversation on the internet, much less a structured debate. Because IMO only an idiot would try to apply the rules of structured debate to ATPN, as though anything even remotely resembling a structured debate has ever taken place here. Why not just admit you can't counter the argument?

Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. I have an agenda too. Less government. But whiners have to make sure that their every whim is legislated, always at someone else's cost and expense.

"Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. "

a) no evidence
b) no evidence
c) admitted a logical fallacy
d) justification by "it happens"

You're really digging yourself deeper into a hole here. People will respond to you when you make a rational argument. But making logically fallacious arguments clearly is not a rational argument.

I can help you. First, tell me why legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy. Second, prove to me that gays and lesbians have polygamy next on their agenda.

Logic and reality do not always coincide or affirm one another- you'd best get used to it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur
"the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," sort of touches on it. It's going to come down to application of the 14th amendment when this finally reaches the SCOTUS one day.

As I see it, the 14th Amendment has no application in this case. Equal protection is not an issue. A gay man or woman can still marry a member of the opposite sex, so they have equal protection.

Not correct. That is like saying Blacks and Whites had the same marriage rights prior to the 1960s (when inter-racial marriages were banned). In those days, Blacks and Whites could each marry someone of their OWN race. Perfectly fair, right? No discrimination, correct? But what happened if a black person fell in love with a white person? The black person is not able to marry her (white) partner, for the sole reason that she is black. If she was white, she could marry him. It's an example of discrimination on grounds of race. Similarly, I am not able to marry my (male) partner, for the sole reason that I am male. If I was female, I would be able to marry my partner. Altho I am not able to marry my partner, Britney Spears COULD legally marry my partner. Therefore I am not treated equally before the law with respect to another citizen (Britney Spears). Britney has a legal right (to marry my partner) that I do not have. This is for the sole reason that Britney is female. It's a straight-forward example of an unreasonable discrimination on grounds of gender. Given that discrimination on grounds of gender is illegal under Californian law, the judge had no choice but to find the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
The 14th Amendment was not constructed to ensure that one could have sex with whom one wants in a legally sanctioned manner.

The case has nothing to do with the legality of homosexual sex. Besides, homosexual sex (between consenting adults, in private) is fully legal throughout the USA, to begin with.

 

[Riprorin]

Can someone point out to me where the Constitution talks about marriage?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur
"the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," sort of touches on it. It's going to come down to application of the 14th amendment when this finally reaches the SCOTUS one day.

As I see it, the 14th Amendment has no application in this case. Equal protection is not an issue. A gay man or woman can still marry a member of the opposite sex, so they have equal protection. The 14th Amendment was not constructed to ensure that one could have sex with whom one wants in a legally sanctioned manner.

Originally posted by: conjur
Care to point out where in the Constitution marriage is defined as between man and woman?

Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage is to offer a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, and a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights. The Constitution does not address the issue of marriage. That is an issue defined by the states. Ultimately, the purpose of marriage is for the welfare of the children.

the new version of marriage being created by the courts has nothing to do with giving incentives for procreating. (You'll notice that the countries that have adopted gay marriages already have declining populations).

Instead, the new version of marriage is strictly a contractual agreement between two people that can be entered into or broken for any reason. ANY two people (or perhaps more than two) can enter into this agreement whenever they want.

Under this new definition, there should be abolutely no reason why a single mother should not be allowed to marry her live-in son to enjoy the tax-filing benefits (or father-daughter, brother-sister, etc).

 

[Michaelbgrant]

I'm a little confused here. During the last election, ad arguement could be made to support the idea that the bush administration used gay marrage ban to beat kerry. Fine. Kerry's position was to allow state law define this for themselves. Fine. So, lets say I live in Kansas and I am homophobic. Why would I want the homosexuals of kansas to have no place to recognize their marrage rights? Why not let them move to a state where the majority supports it? Doesn't that mean that sexual promescuity among the gay population is less resulting in few HIV cases?

I'm looking for a serious response because I really don't understand the logic anywhere. Also, why on earth is it so important that people choose the president for such weird reasons? I mean, why do people care what other people do behind closed doors, why not focus on things like the economy and the debt?

 

[raildogg]

Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

 

[Stunt]

Actually the CA courts see it as a minority rights issue.
Not a will of the majority.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus
I nominate you as the worst poster of the 21st century. The number of logical fallaciies is just staggering.

But only because you disagree with me, right?

No, he's right. Slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.

As is the fallacy of believing that it is possible to have an intelligent conversation on the internet, much less a structured debate. Because IMO only an idiot would try to apply the rules of structured debate to ATPN, as though anything even remotely resembling a structured debate has ever taken place here. Why not just admit you can't counter the argument?

Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. I have an agenda too. Less government. But whiners have to make sure that their every whim is legislated, always at someone else's cost and expense.

"Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. "

a) no evidence
b) no evidence
c) admitted a logical fallacy
d) justification by "it happens"

You're really digging yourself deeper into a hole here. People will respond to you when you make a rational argument. But making logically fallacious arguments clearly is not a rational argument.

I can help you. First, tell me why legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy. Second, prove to me that gays and lesbians have polygamy next on their agenda.

Logic and reality do not always coincide or affirm one another- you'd best get used to it.

And reality does not determine what is right and wrong. Logic and reason are what help you there.

 

[Michaelbgrant]

We should have a minority rights act....

I shall name it... The act of MYOFB

I think collectively we can all agree to allow the states to vote on these things...
Legalized pot
Gay Marriage
Allow statutory rape to have a two year give allowing 17 year olds to sleep with 19 year olds without risking a minimum 5 year prison term.
Legalized polygamy and polymerous relationships

And Make this federal law...
Make the age you drink and the age you can get drafted the same age (across the board)
lower the voting age to 17 (across the board)
Make election day a holiday (across the board)

 

[Michaelbgrant]

WTF is wrong with polygamy? Why is it that people feel the need to control other people? Who cares really?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

When the will of the people is unconstitutional, you bet.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage is to offer a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, and a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights. The Constitution does not address the issue of marriage. That is an issue defined by the states. Ultimately, the purpose of marriage is for the welfare of the children.

Nice try. However, ruling that gays have the right to marry in no way jeopardizes the objectives you cite. I challenge you to make a cogent argument explaining how gays marrying makes a heterosexual marriage a LESS secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, or how gays marrying compromise the rules for the handling of property rights for straight couples. Answer: You can't make a cogent argument because "defending marriage" is a high-sounding phrase that signifies nothing.

As to the Constitution not addressing marriage: Try again. The following is an excerpt in the June, 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, in which the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned STATE anti-miscegenation laws:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

The problem is when judges twist and read things into the Constitution that aren't there to push their own personal agenda, i.e. they legislate from the bench.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

The problem is when judges twist and read thigns that aren't their the Constitution to suit there own opinions, i.e. they legislate from the bench.

That's better than legislating from the Pulpit.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

The problem is when judges twist and read thigns that aren't their the Constitution to suit there own opinions, i.e. they legislate from the bench.

You're right, that can be a problem. However, it is hardly as simple as 'over-ruling the will of the majority'.

Your constitution and most others are actually hopelessly vague; when an issue is a matter of equality and rights which weren't even conceived of at the time the constitution was written, divining the will of the writers becomes extremely difficult; and interpretting that will in the context of hundreds of years of social history is even harder.

Did the writers of the constitution intend to protect the rights of non-whites? I'm not sure, there isn't much evidence that they did though. The same problem applies here.

Is broad-strokes language protecting equality more important than the lack of specific mention for a particular situation? There's no right answer, objectively speaking. Was the will of the founding fathers of America to create a very free nation? Or a nation free within the bounds of Christianity? This is a little more clear, but still muddy; after all, the implicit assumption was that everyone in America was Christian (or Jewish) anyway, so why would such a distinction matter?