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

[DanP]

My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

And your marriage is a great story of "happily ever after", Turbo. It's in the partners IMO, not in the "ceremony" ,old traditions and religious mystique.

 

[turbo]

And your marriage is a great story of "happily ever after", Turbo. It's in the partners IMO, not in the "ceremony" ,old traditions and religious mystique.

I feel blessed (though not in any mystical sense). When we married, my wife and I had nothing. She had lost her job at the veneer mill and was behind on her rent, and I was in the process of losing my job as that mill closed down. We got square on the rent and started chasing jobs - me in construction and her in textiles/shoe production - and we got by just fine. We couldn't have afforded to rent a church, hire a priest, etc, even if we were so inclined (we weren't). Our families were quite miffed that we got married in our apartment without giving them a chance to do something for us, so they put on a pot-luck "reception" for us in the hall over the fire-station (traditionally rent-free for town residents - just leave the place clean). I wouldn't change a thing!

 

[vela]

In the US, a church can perform the ceremony, but you are not "married" until the church officials file the paperwork with the civil authorities. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

It has been traditional for governmentally-sanctioned officials at all levels to be responsible for performing weddings. I don't think we should roll that tradition back or weaken it.

Why should the government have to sanction a marriage?

It's one thing if the government keeps track of marriages for practical purposes. Having an official registry of who's married would be useful should questions of inheritance, next of kin, visitation, etc. arise. So if two individuals get married, they may wish to file the necessary paperwork with the state so there is some official record of their marriage. That's a far cry from having the government telling individuals that they can or can not marry until the government says they can.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

Exactly.

 

[Alfi]

My Wife and I got 'married' to each other by holding hands and stepping over a broom laying on the floor.
It was SO romantic for US. *big grin* - It's been a great twenty+ years so far.
We are agreed that our commitment to each other is no concern of anyone else.
The 'law' ( Canada) says we are married for tax purposes just because we have lived together for some arbitrary length of time.

 

[mheslep]

What, beyond empty words, do you think the a societal institution like the church confers in a marriage ceremony ?

Personally I don't believe the words are empty, but whatever the church (or other like institution) confers need not concern the government. Anyway, what do you believe constitutes a marriage, beyond the legal recognitions already conferred by a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union" ?

If the state needs to sanction what the church does, (tax, property reasons, whatever) why don't let the state handle it and eliminate superfluous involvement of societal institutions ?

I suggest the government sanction nothing regarding marriage done by either a church or Uncle Elmo the elder tribal leader.

 

[mgb_phys]

I suggest the government sanction nothing regarding marriage done by either a church or Uncle Elmo the elder tribal leader.

You mean the government shouldn't recognize church marriages?
I thought they didn't - you still need to register with whatever justice peace/registrar etc your local government requires.

To speed up the process many priests/rabbis/druids/keepers of sacred groves, are also registered to do the government paperwork.

 

[talk2glenn]

To the contrary, it is only when the debate is essentially over that one can argue the existence of a rational basis (either for or against). If the current state of the science is inconclusive, there there is, by definition, no rational basis (against blah).

I think the onus should be on those that wish to deny a right to demonstrate the existence of a well-established scientific position (i.e., saying "this is debatable" is not strong enough grounds to argue for the elimination of a freedom). This argument probably has little legal strength. Legally, I imagine the onus is on the side that wishes to overturn precedent (or somesuch), if such a clear identification can be made.

This would not be the case in a due process civil case.

A rational basis would be, "is the states basis for discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation sufficiently compelling that a rational individual, having no other understanding of the issues, would find it plausible?"

The onus, then, is on the plaintiff to establish that the states reasoning is indeed irrational, if we assume that the state offered into evidence some reasonably compelling basis for the discrimination.

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain. Consider a building safety inspector. Would you expect it to be proven to him that a construction was dangerous before he could condemn it? Of course not; the burden is the building to establish it is sound, not the other way around.

 

[Gokul43201]

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain.

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.

 

[mheslep]

You mean the government shouldn't recognize church marriages? [...]

I mean the government should have nothing to do with the social, ceremonial, or moral aspects of marriage, as I know it, in any form no matter what other institution hosts the marriage ceremony. The government would issue some certificate recognizing the legal aspects of partnership that concern the state - taxes, property, etc, - much as it does now - and no more.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain. Consider a building safety inspector. Would you expect it to be proven to him that a construction was dangerous before he could condemn it? Of course not; the burden is the building to establish it is sound, not the other way around.

The inspector has to document what violations are occurring so they can be fixed. He can't just declare something unsafe and leave it up to the architect to figure out what the hell he's talking about

 

[Char. Limit]

In a rather terrible attempt at irony...

Thank God for the removal of the gay marriage ban!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a rather terrible attempt at irony...

Thank God for the removal of the gay marriage ban!

From what I hear, the prop 8 proponents are worried about this going to the SC because they will probably lose.

I don't know if this is true or not [that they would lose]. Frankly, I would expect just the opposite, but that is based on my understanding of the Constitution and not my understanding of this particular court.

 

[DanP]

I mean the government should have nothing to do with the social, ceremonial, or moral aspects of marriage, as I know it, in any form no matter what other institution hosts the marriage ceremony. The government would issue some certificate recognizing the legal aspects of partnership that concern the state - taxes, property, etc, - much as it does now - and no more.

But the government doesn't have anything to do with the social , ceremonial or moral aspects of the marriage even today.

- The government doesn't tell you you can only marry within your confession. The church does.
- The government doesn't tell you you should only marry ppl of a certain group color. Social group pressure does.
- The government doesn't enforce any kind of ceremonial aspect on you other than registration. You are still free to make whatever ceremony you want for your wedding.
- The government doesn't regulate the moral aspects of the marriage. Moral cannot be legislated.
- The state, for better or worst, is a progressive institution. The church is stuck somewhere in the middle ages.

The government has no involvement in marriage save for registration, and the requirement of some superfluous health tests in some cases. So yes, the state does not interfere in any way whatsoever with your marriage.

If we talk about gay marriage, the opposition is mainly social and religious. Its the church and societal institutions which lobby the state to not allow gay marriages. It's the fear of humans of what's different of them, their fear of out-groups which hits into the gay community. And in the front of the movement against gay marriage is the church and the traditionalists who love a constipated society .

The state recognized gay marriage in many places on Earth way before societal institutions like the church where even willing to speak about it.

 

[ZQrn]

Marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather with certain rights, benefits and privileges gained by the partner. An object cannot inherit an estate. An object can't be granted visitation rights in a hospital. An object doesn't gain health insurance benefits. An object cannot consent to marriage. An object can't sign the papers.

I'm annoyed at myself that I'm drawn into even debating this red herring, but this is two people now insisting that "what about people that want to marry inanimate objects?" is a valid argument.

Then why have same sex marriage? All these things can already be arranged outside of marriage?

Why have marriage anyway, in fact?

Which was my point.

When there was debate some 100 years ago about whether women should have the right to vote, did anyone ever bring up the "What if my cat wants to vote?" argument? Of course not.

Source?

I find it not to unlikely that some people didn't raise that argument at that point.

We're talking about *human* rights here

And even if being 'human' supposedly gives one more rights (the same was said about male once, and the same was said about being white, about being noble, about being wealthy, about owning land et cetera). It still doesn't defeat the argument of first degree relatives or poly-amorous marriages and a whole ot more.

fundamental human rights.

So now the right to marry a single adult you are not related to which means nothing more than some tax advantage and paperwork nowadays is 'a fundamental human right'?

Show me an authority which recognizes this as a fundamental human right. A lot of cultures don't even have a concept of marriage.

Stop the silly, silly talk of people wanting to marry "things" should gay marriage ever become legal.

I'm not even going to dignify this dogmatic argument from assertion with a response.

 

[Jack21222]

Then why have same sex marriage? All these things can already be arranged outside of marriage?

Why have marriage anyway, in fact?

Which was my point.

NO THEY CANNOT. There have been numerous cases where people have TRIED to arrange this outside of marriage, only to have their wills disregarded and hospital visitation rights denied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

There are a couple stories in that link where hospital visitation was denied, although paperwork was signed.

It still doesn't defeat the argument of first degree relatives or poly-amorous marriages and a whole ot more.

Again, that's completely off topic, and if you keep posting off topic discussions, somebody's going to lock this thread. This thread is specifically about same sex marriage. If you want to start a debate about sibling marriage, start another thread.

The judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to legalize what you mention. This lawsuit was about proposition 8 in California, which singled out same-sex marriage. That's all the judge can rule on.

So now the right to marry a single adult you are not related to which means nothing more than some tax advantage and paperwork nowadays is 'a fundamental human right'?

Show me an authority which recognizes this as a fundamental human right. A lot of cultures don't even have a concept of marriage.

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on gender is a fundamental human right.

I'm not even going to dignify this dogmatic argument from assertion with a response.

That's not dogmatic, that's axiomatic. Most people will agree to that premise axiomatically. Don't blame us if you're one of the few people in the world that can't agree to the axiom "objects don't have rights."

 

[ZQrn]

NO THEY CANNOT. There have been numerous cases where people have TRIED to arrange this outside of marriage, only to have their wills disregarded and hospital visitation rights denied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

There are a couple stories in that link where hospital visitation was denied, although paperwork was signed.

There will be cases too if they are married. You said it yourself, it was in the will, the paperwork was signed. This is simply a hospital breaking the law basically, and the hospital would probably do same if they were married and not recognize it as a marriage.

Again, that's completely off topic, and if you keep posting off topic discussions, somebody's going to lock this thread. This thread is specifically about same sex marriage. If you want to start a debate about sibling marriage, start another thread.

Learn to appreciate the idea of logical implication.

Again, my argument is that this has nothing to do with equality, if it was about equality, then those other cases would have to be included. This is perfectly on topic, this is an argument to consistency demonstrating that even though the judge supposedly ruled from equal protection, it's hardly about equal protection.

The judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to legalize what you mention. This lawsuit was about proposition 8 in California, which singled out same-sex marriage. That's all the judge can rule on.

A judge can also rule unconstitutional any law which says that marriage is between two human beings, or 'two x', has it been done?

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on gender is a fundamental human right.

So fundamental that it's 40 years old?

So what you say is that EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY violates fundamental human rights on a daily basis? Discrimination on sexes is real and it happens as we speak. This is human nature, sadly, discrimination based on sexes happens and happens on the subconscious level.

That's not dogmatic, that's axiomatic. Most people will agree to that premise axiomatically. Don't blame us if you're one of the few people in the world that can't agree to the axiom "objects don't have rights."

The difference between an axiom and a dogma is that an axiom is only assumed for sake of argument, whereas a dogma is simply said to be true without any proof, and also expected from others to believe it.

Also, it was a sentence in the imperative mood, not the indicative. It was an ought, not an is.

 

[Jack21222]

There will be cases too if they are married. You said it yourself, it was in the will, the paperwork was signed. This is simply a hospital breaking the law basically, and the hospital would probably do same if they were married and not recognize it as a marriage.

It's up to you to prove that.

A judge can also rule unconstitutional any law which says that marriage is between two human beings, or 'two x', has it been done?

Not in this case, he cannot! A different lawsuit will need to be filed, and so far, it hasn't. Until one is, stop making off topic posts.

So fundamental that it's 40 years old?

Yes

So what you say is that EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY violates fundamental human rights on a daily basis?

Almost certainly, yes.

Discrimination on sexes is real and it happens as we speak. This is human nature, sadly, discrimination based on sexes happens and happens on the subconscious level.

And?

The difference between an axiom and a dogma is that an axiom is only assumed for sake of argument, whereas a dogma is simply said to be true without any proof, and also expected from others to believe it.

Also, it was a sentence in the imperative mood, not the indicative. It was an ought, not an is.

I don't expect you to believe it, I just refuse to debate under any set of rules where your opinion about marrying objects is valid. Most others in the thread agree with me.

 

[ZQrn]

It's up to you to prove that.

It's up to you to prove that the world doesn't blow up into flames if you don't get me some milk and cookies on the double!

I can't prove that no, but it's reasonably likely that some fringe groups will ignore these marriages, hell, it even happened in the Netherlands.

Not in this case, he cannot! A different lawsuit will need to be filed, and so far, it hasn't.

I doubt any judge would even consider if it you filed it for objects or anime characters

Until one is, stop making off topic posts.

Oh the difficulty people have with the concept of 'implication'.

All I'm saying is, 'you can't have only one, you need to have both', I'm in favour of having all of course. I'm even in favour of 'asymetric marriages', that I am married to you, but you not to me, because you refused. You can visit me in the hospital, but not the other way around.

Yes



Almost certainly, yes.

That's a bit of inflation of the term 'fundamental right' then.

So, who should we punish for violating / not providing these fundamental rights?

And?

Well, if you say 'and?' to this, then how can you use it as an argument for same sex marriages.

The only argument I see in favour of them is generally letting people do what they want to do, and this also includes letting them marry to anime characters and what-not, and I'm cool with that.

I just don't feel that same sex marriage has anything to do with 'equality'

I don't expect you to believe it, I just refuse to debate under any set of rules where your opinion about marrying objects is valid. Most others in the thread agree with me.

Or you could truly to convince me with an argument that it's 'silly', of course, we'd need a working definition of that. I think marriage is a 'silly' concept on itself, but hey, if people want to do that, I'm not stopping them, if they want to marry an object then I'm okay with that too.

 

[Jack21222]

hell, it even happened in the Netherlands.

Then there you go! Post your proof.

I doubt any judge would even consider if it you filed it for objects or anime characters
Oh the difficulty people have with the concept of 'implication'.

Start a new thread about it, preferably in the philosophy forum.

All I'm saying is, 'you can't have only one, you need to have both',

Based on what? Certainly you can have one. At least one at a time. In fact, you can ONLY have one at a time in a case like this. Once again, the judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do whatever he wants. He must only rule on the case brought before him.

Or you could truly to convince me with an argument that it's 'silly', of course, we'd need a working definition of that.

No. Once again, that would be off topic. I don't know why you persist in this. If you really want to have a philosophical debate about the rights of inanimate objects, post a thread in the philosophy forum.

 

[ZQrn]

Then there you go! Post your proof.

http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=viewartikel&artikel_id=3340

How good is your Dutch?

Start a new thread about it, preferably in the philosophy forum.

Again, my point is not that either way 'should' happen, my point is that this has nothing to do with 'equality' and not a matter of constitution. This just means that same sex marriage is getting more acceptable.

The same Dutch reading the same constitution 50 years back wouldn't have allowed it 50 years is not much for something people seem to consider a 'fundamental right'. This has nothing to do with a constitution, or an inalienable right, or 'equality', this is simply cultural shift. And the majority of people who advocate in favour today would advocate against if they were born only 60 years back.

Based on what? Certainly you can have one. At least one at a time. In fact, you can ONLY have one at a time in a case like this. Once again, the judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do whatever he wants. He must only rule on the case brought before him.

And you seriously believe if some one brought him the case 'Hey, can I marry anime characters?' he would say 'Yes, of course, all there in the equal protection act!'

No. Once again, that would be off topic. I don't know why you persist in this. If you really want to have a philosophical debate about the rights of inanimate objects, post a thread in the philosophy forum.

I am not interested in a debate about the rights of animals, I'm using a reductio ad absurdum.

I'm just pointing out that if this was about equality, then by the same principle people would be able to marry objects or anime characters or their own family and what-not. Since they cannot, this isn't about 'equality', this is about cultural shift. People become more and more accepting towards same sex unions, that's all that happened, this has nothing to do with fundamental rights or 'equality'.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I'm just pointing out that if this was about equality, then by the same principle people would be able to marry objects or anime characters or their own family and what-not.

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=viewartikel&artikel_id=3340

How good is your Dutch?

Non-existent, but running it through yahoo's translator gives that the article is about someone being denied communion. Not quite the hospital visitation smoking gun

 

[mgb_phys]

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

Perhaps NOT rocket science?

At least in the UK the government is fairly liberal about interpreting same-sex relationships when it comes to them handing out money. You can't claim your boyfriend is your wife when it comes to paying tax - but they claim he is when it comes to paying you unemployment benefit.

 

[ZQrn]

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

As I pointed out, you can always get those benefits where not related to love by just marrying a random female.

I think the term 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, gays have always been able to get married, and the marriage doesn't ask for your sexual orientation, the point is if two people of same sex can get married or not.

And those benefits can usually be arranged outside of marriage.

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

 

[dpackard]

As I pointed out, you can always get those benefits where not related to love by just marrying a random female.

I think the term 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, gays have always been able to get married, and the marriage doesn't ask for your sexual orientation, the point is if two people of same sex can get married or not.

And those benefits can usually be arranged outside of marriage.

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

Regardless of your feelings about state regulated marriage licenses, they exist, and the state cannot discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to receive said licenses. Why should gay people have to arrange for all the benefits of marriage themselves? Why can't they just get the same certificate as everyone else?

I think "gay marriage" is a perfectly coherent term. You're being a bit nonsensical though.

 

[ZQrn]

Regardless of your feelings about state regulated marriage licenses, they exist, and the state cannot discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to receive said licenses. Why should gay people have to arrange for all the benefits of marriage themselves? Why can't they just get the same certificate as everyone else?

Arranging for a marriage takes a lot longer than arranging for an 'all the legal consequences of marriage except not calling it 'married''. I think you can do these things on line these days here. Sadly this doesn't apply to stones, but with the press of a button I can indeed make first degree relatives legally equivalent to 'being married' to except the marriage label basically.

I think "gay marriage" is a perfectly coherent term. You're being a bit nonsensical though.

I think gay marriage is a repulsive term that implies that it's only open to gay people. Same sex marriage is far more descriptive and far more neutral. It describes exactly what it is, a marriage between [two] people of the same sex.

Gay marriage is also a terms which implies the human species to be neatly partitioned in 'straight' and 'gay' a thing not true of course, there are enough people that would both utilize other-sex marriage and same-sex marriage.

 

[mheslep]

But the government doesn't have anything to do with the social , ceremonial or moral aspects of the marriage even today.

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.

I'm not interested here in the other govt./society/church comparisons, aside from this one at the moment:

- The government doesn't regulate the moral aspects of the marriage. Moral cannot be legislated.

Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

The state recognized gay marriage in many places on Earth

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?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think you can do these things on line these days here. Sadly this doesn't apply to stones, but with the press of a button I can indeed make first degree relatives legally equivalent to 'being married' to except the marriage label basically.

I'm calling this obvious bluff. You cannot grant someone power of attorney in the event of incapacitation online. You cannot write someone into your will online with the click of a button. You're just making this up

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

There are two possibilities here:
1) Hospital visitation is dependent on your ability to get communion
2) What you posted has nothing to do with hospital visitation rights

 

[Evo]

Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

Marriage is all about the legal aspect, IMO. Two people can *morally* commit to each other without making it a legal obligation. Taking the step of getting "legally" married and recognized by the government is what the issue is about. I support same sex marriage so that the legal benefits are extended fairly.

 

[ZQrn]

I'm calling this obvious bluff. You cannot grant someone power of attorney in the event of incapacitation online. You cannot write someone into your will online with the click of a button. You're just making this up.

Well, it's a simplified version yeah, you request it online, get some paperwork sent to you, sign it et cetera..

There are two possibilities here:
1) Hospital visitation is dependent on your ability to get communion
2) What you posted has nothing to do with hospital visitation rights

I have no idea what you mean by this or how your logic went here, but feel free to fill me in where I missed it.

 

[Char. Limit]

I will say to Jack: this is NOT about gender discrimination. As I posted on page 1, a post you seem to have ignored... why would I say it again? Go look, it's on page 1.

 

[ZQrn]

I will say to Jack: this is NOT about gender discrimination. As I posted on page 1, a post you seem to have ignored... why would I say it again? Go look, it's on page 1.

In response to that though, people are discriminated on their preferences. Which are unconventional at best.

Let's say I have an unconventional preference in sports, I like to play cricket, there is probably not a single cricket club in this entire country, am I then discriminated against?

Or let's make it one further, say I have an unconventional taste in food, say I like to eat dog, apparently it's not legal in this country to eat or sell dog meat, I never got why, but are the people that like dog meat then discriminated against?

How about people that like reeeeaaaally violent films, those aren't, and may not, be shown on daytime television, in many countries not on TV at all, one has to rent then, in some countries they aren't even allowed to be possessed, are they discriminated against?

What if you like small breasts in Australia?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I hear, the prop 8 proponents are worried about this going to the SC because they will probably lose.

I don't know if this is true or not [that they would lose]. Frankly, I would expect just the opposite, but that is based on my understanding of the Constitution and not my understanding of this particular court.

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

To me this issue seems fairly clear cut. Laws against gay marriages are discrimination.

Perhaps all civil marriages [outside of a church] should just be called civil unions. Leave "marriage" to the churches. What makes me laugh is when righties try to talk about the sanctity of marriage, which is a purely religious concept. Interestingly, many people seem to think that by legalizing gay marriages, churches would be forced to marry gay couples, which is silly.

 

[Char. Limit]

In response to that though, people are discriminated on their preferences. Which are unconventional at best.

Let's say I have an unconventional preference in sports, I like to play cricket, there is probably not a single cricket club in this entire country, am I then discriminated against?

Or let's make it one further, say I have an unconventional taste in food, say I like to eat dog, apparently it's not legal in this country to eat or sell dog meat, I never got why, but are the people that like dog meat then discriminated against?

How about people that like reeeeaaaally violent films, those aren't, and may not, be shown on daytime television, in many countries not on TV at all, one has to rent then, in some countries they aren't even allowed to be possessed, are they discriminated against?

What if you like small breasts in Australia?

All I'm saying is that Prop 8 isn't sexism, as Jack seems to think it is. While it is homophobia, it's not sexism. Really, whenever someone claims sexism, I tend to join the opposite side of the argument. Call it the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. Gay marriage bans aren't sexist.

 

[ZQrn]

All I'm saying is that Prop 8 isn't sexism, as Jack seems to think it is. While it is homophobia, it's not sexism. Really, whenever someone claims sexism, I tend to join the opposite side of the argument. Call it the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. Gay marriage bans aren't sexist.

Hey I agree there. I also don't call it 'homophobia' per se. Hell, I talked to some homosexual people who feel that indeed from the early onset marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women as an incubator for children and that registered partnerships provide all they need and 'marriage' is simply a meaningless label nowadays and are therefore against same sex marriage as they feel you recognise the idiocity of marriage only more if you just want it for no reason.

I mean, there are more things like this, if you're being searched at the airport and you're a woman, they usually send a woman, some airports or nations make this a law, is this discrimination based on gender?

What about public bathrooms, males can't enter the ladies' room and ladies can't enter the men's room, same with dressing rooms at school for sports. I've often raised the argument that separate dressing rooms are absurd and basically assume that all students are heterosexual, you either have to give each student his/her own dressing room or lump them all together. No same sex marriage to me is the same thing.

 

[turbo]

Interestingly, many people seem to think that by legalizing gay marriages, churches would be forced to marry gay couples, which is silly.

One line of attack ads that went after the gay-marriage bill in Maine used this argument. Government can't make churches do much of anything, much less violate their own religious beliefs. Still the anti-gay movement (spearheaded by the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and funded by millions in out-of-state donations) convinced many people that their churches would have to marry gay couples. A church ceremony is just that - a ceremony. It does not result in a legally-recognized marriage without a marriage license, duly notarized and filed with governmental entities. If gay people in Maine wanted a ceremony with religious trappings, I'm pretty sure they would be quite welcome at the local Unitarian churches. No need to corrupt a Baptist or Catholic church with gay cooties.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One line of attack ads that went after the gay-marriage bill in Maine used this argument. Government can't make churches do much of anything, much less violate their own religious beliefs. Still the anti-gay movement (spearheaded by the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and funded by millions in out-of-state donations) convinced many people that their churches would have to marry gay couples. A church ceremony is just that - a ceremony. It does not result in a legally-recognized marriage without a marriage license, duly notarized and filed with governmental entities. If gay people in Maine wanted a ceremony with religious trappings, I'm pretty sure they would be quite welcome at the local Unitarian churches. No need to corrupt a Baptist or Catholic church with gay cooties.

Too bad. I can understand the Catholic's position on illegal immigration as that is [viewed as] a human rights issues, but I don't understand them leading the charge on this one.

Interestingly, my oldest friend in life [since age 1], who is also a devout Catholic, is gay.

 

[ZQrn]

Too bad. I can understand the Catholic's position on illegal immigration as that is [viewed as] a human rights issues, but I don't understand them leading the charge on this one.

Interestingly, my oldest friend in life [since age 1], who is also a devout Catholic, is gay.

Because being a devout Catholic and being gay is soooooo unusual?

[PLAIN]http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2010/6/priest.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because being a devout Catholic and being gay is soooooo unusual?

Is that guy supposed to be gay or something?

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

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.

 

[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).