News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[ZQrn]

Is that guy supposed to be gay or something?

No, a priest.

People should be in awe of most Catholic priests. They are incredible people.

I never met one to be honest, or at least, not in function, you never know of course.

Well, I guess it was interesting to me. He was raised about as Catholic as one can get [I hated to stay at his house because we had study the Bible for one hour each night - we already went to church every day before our classes in a Catholic school], but he still was able to admit his sexuality.

How did his parents take it?

I also know a lesbian Muslim, parents do not like it.

So much for the nonsense about how the Catholics brainwash people.

Because we all know one counter example is enough, after all, smoking isn't bad for you health as my grandfather lived to be 95 and smoked all day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How did his parents take it?

I also know a lesbian Muslim, parents do not like it.

They adjusted. They love their son.

Because we all know one counter example is enough,

And because I know the church intimately. We were also taught to think for ourselves. We were taught science - a heavy emphasis on science. We were taught about evolution as early as the 1960s. Even then I was taught that evolution was a scientific fact. We also received a far better education than did the public school kids, which is why my mother wanted us in a Catholic school.

 

[turbo]

It sounds like you went to a parochial school affiliated with the Jesuits - good emphasis on sciences, math, etc in those. In Maine, the equivalent are schools run by Maronite sisters - Lebanese Catholics that came here when Lebanese emigrated to work in spinning and weaving mills along the rivers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

If one were to believe the movies, priests and nuns haven't changed their clothes in five centuries.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It sounds like you went to a parochial school affiliated with the Jesuits - good emphasis on sciences, math, etc in those.

Yes, I had forgotten that distinction. Good point.

Still, we had exposure to plenty of orders within the church. It's not like we saw radical differences, but there have always been a few backwards orders - people would sort of roll their eyes when some where mentioned.

 

[Char. Limit]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

If one were to believe the movies, priests and nuns haven't changed their clothes in five centuries.

You mean they have?

 

[Office_Shredder]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

I'm pretty sure that's a Halloween costume, only because that's the only context in which you see people with a white background wearing costumes

 

[DanP]

Yes it does. The state requires a marriage to be performed by an authority it recognizes: Judge, minister, etc. The state sets up behavioural rules for gauging who wins what when the marriage ends.

Actually, no. The issue when marriage ends is completely different by the one of getting married. EVen if the church gets the power to marry 2 ppl, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE to not
have the legal system involved at divorce. Why ? Because humans have the fundamental right to access justice, and in the case of a divorce, more often than not, amiable splitting is not possible.

This is not state regulating marriage, this is divorce / legal separation legislation, which is a very different animal than marriage.

The fact that state requires an authority to perform a marriage does not means it interferes in any way with marriage. Should somehow the authority to perform marriages return to church, the priest will be the new authority required to perform a marriage.

There is no use in breaking the status quo. It works perfectly, much better than the times when church refused to marry 2 ppl from thousand of motives. Like, sex, color, different confessions and so on. Such a move would also create chaos since its very possible that different confessions and groups will institute different & idiotic rules for marriage, and very possible not recognize the marriages performed by others than themselves.

I'm not interested here in the other govt./society/church comparisons, aside from this one at the moment:
Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

No, it's not a moral undertaking. Legally is just a form of civil contract.

Now here you lay importance again on state recognition of marriage, preceded by point after point about how the state "does not interfere in any way whatsoever" with marriage. Which is it?

Which is what ? Recognition does not mean interference.

 

[turbo]

I meant to say the prop 8 opponents are likely to lose; ie. the SC is not likely to take the gay rights stand.

I don't know. Although there is a preponderance of Catholic justices on the court, one of them (Kennedy) is fairly libertarian in his views. If the court is fairly split, I'd count on him to break the split and write the decision for the majority.

I think the gay-marriage proponents have a fairly good shot at prevailing at the SC. The neo-cons would have a hard time finding legal justification for discriminating against gays due to their sexual orientation. The Constitution is silent on that issue, so there would have to be some pretty creative "legislating from the bench" before the SC could uphold Prop 8 as the law of the land. In doing so, they would put in jeopardy all the state laws that allow or recognize same-sex marriage. That's not an attractive prospect. Better to deal with the case one time and done - which favors a strike-down of Prop 8 IMO.

 

[talk2glenn]

I guess I find myself on the other end of the liberty vs security spectrum from you on this issue (i.e., closer to Ben Franklin's end of it). I would demand stronger evidence from the side that wishes to deny a liberty than from the side that might potentially weaken security.

On a separate note, most arguments that I have heard from the other side (FRC, and suchtypes - nothing peer reviewed) have not convinced me of their soundness. But I am interested to look at any studies that you are aware of from which one could make a case for a plausible security risk.

I think the error here is in your assumption that marriage is a fundamental liberty or right. It is not, under the US constitution as interpreted by the courts.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental human right, as enumerated in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

The state is not denying liberty in restricting who can marry (and indeed the state provides many restrictions on marraige priveledges that are not the subject of debate - minors, immediate relatives, etc, if marriage were a "right" these would be untenable). To the extent that the state is argued to be denying the liberty of equal protection in marriage license discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that there is no rational basis for the restriction, unless it is based on the protected class of race and gender, which are presumed illegal unless in the case of gender the state proves a public interest.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not involve race and gender. Therefore, again, if we assume that the state has a rational basis for its discrimination, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. I am not arguing here about what ought to be, but about what is, under existing federal law.

I would imagine that the other sides rational basis for denying homosexual couples marriage licenses has to do with perceived instability of homosexual relationships, the lack of social advantage from homosexual marriage, and the developmental disadvantage of children of homosexual couples. To the extent that these arguments are compelling enough to be plausible even in the absence of conclusive evidence, the plaintiff would have to show in court that they were irrational (ie, directly contradicted by available evidence).

 

[edward]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

 

[Jack21222]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

Separate but equal is never equal. You'd have to remove the word "marriage" from straight couples too.

 

[turbo]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

I'm not so sure. The anti-gay steamroller that ran through this little state proclaimed very loudly that allowing gays to enjoy the same civil rights as straight people would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. We were hammered with that illogical crap on the TV and radio constantly. Coming soon to a theater near you (probably). Homophobic people are primarily religious, as far as I can see.

I happen to know (and have as a fan of my music) the national enforcer of a very large 1%-er biker gang. He is a decent mild-mannered guy, and he always bought rounds for the band and made requests, which we were happy to supply, since he wanted to hear our cover versions of songs that were common to our lives. When some biker-posers showed up one day on matching brand-new Harley Springers to show their asses and make a lot of noise, he got out of his chair and told them just what the hog weighed. They left. Is he gay? Does a bear **** in the woods? Yes, there are huge scary-looking bikers that are gay. Most are pretty good people.

My biker buddy might not want or need the word "marriage" included on the certificate, and he might not even want a certificate at all, but if his partner couldn't visit him in intensive care during a serious illness or after a crash, I would consider him ill-served by our government. Our country needs a RESET in this regard, IMO.

 

[Hurkyl]

Separate but equal is never equal. You'd have to remove the word "marriage" from straight couples too.

Then let's do away with the terms "woman" and "man", and stop teaching the concepts of "female" and "male" in the schools.

 

[edward]

Then let's do away with the terms "woman" and "man", and stop teaching the concepts of "female" and "male" in the schools.

Yep, and children should be called human moppets.

 

[edward]

I'm not so sure. The anti-gay steamroller that ran through this little state proclaimed very loudly that allowing gays to enjoy the same civil rights as straight people would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. We were hammered with that illogical crap on the TV and radio constantly. Coming soon to a theater near you (probably). Homophobic people are primarily religious, as far as I can see.

I happen to know (and have as a fan of my music) the national enforcer of a very large 1%-er biker gang. He is a decent mild-mannered guy, and he always bought rounds for the band and made requests, which we were happy to supply, since he wanted to hear our cover versions of songs that were common to our lives. When some biker-posers showed up one day on matching brand-new Harley Springers to show their asses and make a lot of noise, he got out of his chair and told them just what the hog weighed. They left. Is he gay? Does a bear **** in the woods? Yes, there are huge scary-looking bikers that are gay. Most are pretty good people.

My biker buddy might not want or need the word "marriage" included on the certificate, and he might not even want a certificate at all, but if his partner couldn't visit him in intensive care during a serious illness or after a crash, I would consider him ill-served by our government. Our country needs a RESET in this regard, IMO.

Gays have hospital visit rights.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052702304510004575186893862169492.html

 

[edward]

Separate but equal is never equal. You'd have to remove the word "marriage" from straight couples too.

But then gays would want to use whatever new term that the former married people used.

 

[ZQrn]

I was always kind of a big fan or removing one's gender of any legal document so that one can never receive any legal right from it nor any legal plight. Of course, this remains on medical files but a medical right or plight is a different thing.

Would be kind of cool, if the law does not register genders and it stops being a legal category, one can basically lie to be a male on one's CV out of fear they might not hire female mathematicians or whatever.

Also, same sex marriage comes with it for free, of course.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the error here is in your assumption that marriage is a fundamental liberty or right. It is not, under the US constitution as interpreted by the courts.

Yes, I understand that ... which is why I stated that this was my opinion of how things ought to be, rather than how I suspect they legally might be.

I am not arguing here about what ought to be, but about what is, under existing federal law.

There! We are arguing two slightly different things.

I did say in my earlier opinion that: "This argument probably has little legal strength."

PS: Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I imagine the courts had to make a similar weighing of liberty vs risk to societal/moral security here as they did in the '60s with Loving vs. Virginia.

 

[Gokul43201]

People should be in awe of most Catholic priests. They are incredible people.

Why should they? You provide no reasoning - just a blanket assertion.

Well, I guess it was interesting to me. He was raised about as Catholic as one can get [I hated to stay at his house because we had to study the Bible for one hour each night - we already went to church every day before our classes in a Catholic school], but he still was able to admit his sexuality. So much for the nonsense about how the Catholics brainwash people.

And because I know the church intimately. We were also taught to think for ourselves. We were taught science - a heavy emphasis on science. We were taught about evolution as early as the 1960s. Even then I was taught that evolution was a scientific fact.

Just to be clear: are you saying that it would be brainwashing to teach that Evolution is bogus, but not brainwashing to teach that homosexuality is a grave moral depravity¹?

1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[Jack21222]

Then let's do away with the terms "woman" and "man", and stop teaching the concepts of "female" and "male" in the schools.

There are actual differences between a male and a female. Biological differences. Real ones.

There are no substantial differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union, other than the superficial difference that "one has a man and a woman, the other doesn't."

 

[CRGreathouse]

There are actual differences between a male and a female. Biological differences. Real ones.

There are no substantial differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union, other than the superficial difference that "one has a man and a woman, the other doesn't."

That's a bad argument for a good point.

 

[Hurkyl]

There are actual differences between a male and a female. Biological differences. Real ones.

There are no substantial differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union, other than the superficial difference that "one has a man and a woman, the other doesn't."

Eh? Whatever happened to those actual differences between a male and a female?

There are a lot of contexts where the difference between male and female is superficial, at least in the modern view. But, for example, women's suffrage didn't come at the expense of redefining the term "male" to include both males and females.

 

[vertices]

I do think it would be wrong to let religious zealots claim the word "marriage" for themselves. This is a matter of principle...

 

[ZQrn]

There are actual differences between a male and a female. Biological differences. Real ones.

There are no substantial differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union, other than the superficial difference that "one has a man and a woman, the other doesn't."

This is really in the eye of the beholder though. As a far fetched example, to a mosquito, there probably will be little difference between a chimp and a human noticeable, let alone a male and a female.

I personally believe that a difference is more virtual, the harder it is to teach a computer to recognize it. Yeah, most human beings instantly recognize the difference between a female and a male face, but in various cases they are also simply wrong. The difference between males and females is like the difference between live and not live matter. People naïvely think it's there, want it to be there, but in the end, it's harder than they think to define and point out exactly what it is and demonstrate that it's there.

 

[Jack21222]

Eh? Whatever happened to those actual differences between a male and a female?

There are a lot of contexts where the difference between male and female is superficial, at least in the modern view. But, for example, women's suffrage didn't come at the expense of redefining the term "male" to include both males and females.

No, they redefined the law to say citizens can vote, not just males. They didn't make a separate term in lieu of "vote" for women.

 

[ZQrn]

No, they redefined the law to say citizens can vote, not just males. They didn't make a separate term in lieu of "vote" for women.

Same thing happened in same sex marriages in the Netherlands, the existing law of marriage was adjusted, no new law was made.

 

[DanP]

There are actual differences between a male and a female. Biological differences. Real ones.

Sure. Men and women are anatomically different. Its required for natural reproduction.

So we ain't the same .

Besides that ... the differences are insignificant. Skin deep, no one is better than the other.

Women can be as intelligent than man, and women can be as strong as man, when you normalize for muscle mass.

Several months ago a girl on this board said that "man fight crocodiles", while girls don't . Actually, this is a consequence of man wear blue, girls wear pink", IMO. I have met women with more balls than the man. Girls who would fight crocodiles, when "man" would run away. I have also met women with more brains than man.

The irony is, many times a man is more of a scared chick then a women. Keep that in mind.
And enjoy the rest of the biological differences (unless you play for the opposite team :P)

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps all civil marriages [outside of a church] should just be called civil unions.

Agreed, or something like close to that. How'd this happen?

 

[Evo]

Agreed, or something like close to that. How'd this happen?

Why should people that choose not to have a church ceremony not have a right to call it marriage? How about all of the phobic people get over it? (not aimed at you mheslep), your's was just the last post on this.