It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawyers Give Final Arguments In Prop 8 Case

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Lawyers Give Final Arguments In Prop 8 Case


www.time.com


SAN FRANCISCO) — Lawyers arguing a landmark federal case involving California's same-sex marriage ban made their final arguments Wednesday, with supporters describing matrimony as an institution intended to promote childbearing and opponents saying the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized it as a fundamental right.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
This is a great story.

Hopefully the Judge will see reason and abolish the ridiculous notion of gays not being able to mary. The prosecution also made some wonderful points. So did the judge.

Let's look at a few of them.



Olson invoked the high court often during his closing argument, stressing that it has afforded prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws the right to marry and refused to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.

"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said. "The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation."




Olson said that argument would only work from a constitutional standpoint if the ban's backers had proven that allowing gays to wed was a threat to heterosexual relationships, a requirement Olson said had not been met.

"You would have to explain or make some statement that allowing these other individuals we represent here today to engage in the institution of marriage would somehow stop people from getting married ... or cause them to get divorced," he said.




"Your honor, there is a political tide running. And I think that people's eyes are being opened," Olson answered. "But that doesn't justify a judge in a court to say, 'I really need the polls to be just a few more points higher. I need somebody to go out and take the temperature of the American public before I can break down this barrier and change this discrimination."


I certainly look forward to seeing the ruling.

~Keeper

www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


This is a great story.

Hopefully the Judge will see reason and abolish the ridiculous notion of gays not being able to mary. The prosecution also made some wonderful points. So did the judge.

Let's look at a few of them.



Olson invoked the high court often during his closing argument, stressing that it has afforded prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws the right to marry and refused to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.

"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said. "The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation."




Olson said that argument would only work from a constitutional standpoint if the ban's backers had proven that allowing gays to wed was a threat to heterosexual relationships, a requirement Olson said had not been met.

"You would have to explain or make some statement that allowing these other individuals we represent here today to engage in the institution of marriage would somehow stop people from getting married ... or cause them to get divorced," he said.




"Your honor, there is a political tide running. And I think that people's eyes are being opened," Olson answered. "But that doesn't justify a judge in a court to say, 'I really need the polls to be just a few more points higher. I need somebody to go out and take the temperature of the American public before I can break down this barrier and change this discrimination."


I certainly look forward to seeing the ruling.

~Keeper

www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


You support this right? not meaning to be mean....but your also gay right...i wonder why you support gay marriage...i wonder
[sarcasm]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by empireofpain]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by empireofpain
 



I am as straight as they come, and i not only support this right. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with any gay man or woman out there to fight for this right.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

"God given rights"

"All men are created equal"

Words like this in our constitution demand that we treat gay people as the same humans that we treat rapists as. And rapists are allowed to marry.

It is stupid to have laws that do nothing but support prejudice and bigotry. It is an affront to the American ideals of liberty. No one has to earn unalienable rights. They are already earned, as a gift of the Creator.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Ok this isn't really a "touchy" subject for me, because I wouldn't want to marry anyone.

However, I *may* be biased, since I am homosexual.

Why does anyone care, at all, who other people want to marry?

The only people that should be allowed to marry are those that are abusing the person they are trying to marry.

Marriage gives fundamental rights to people who wish to do so.

If I wanted to marry another man - what does that have to do with someone else?

Marriage promotes family? Children? That's a joke right?

My mother married her ex-husband, gave birth to my sister, and they divorced.

Then my mother had me, many years later, by another man, who is long gone.

Then my mother abandoned me.

Ok - so people can get married, have a child - then divorce. And that is ok.

Then people can have children outside of marriage. And that is ok.

However - for me, as an adult if I wanted the rights given to a couple through marriage, I'm not allowed to do that because I wouldn't be having children?

By the way there are a lot of gay parents raising children better than a lot of straight parents ever did - take my family for example).


What about gay people getting married is bad? I don't get it.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by empireofpain
 



I am as straight as they come, and i not only support this right. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with any gay man or woman out there to fight for this right.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

"God given rights"

"All men are created equal"

Words like this in our constitution demand that we treat gay people as the same humans that we treat rapists as. And rapists are allowed to marry.

It is stupid to have laws that do nothing but support prejudice and bigotry. It is an affront to the American ideals of liberty. No one has to earn unalienable rights. They are already earned, as a gift of the Creator.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]


None of that appears in the constitution but the declaration of independence( i think i MAY be wrong on this). Marriage is not a right. But a privelage.

Thats why i say let the states decide. If you want to extend that privelage to gays then let your state decide. Dont force it on the rest of the states and people.

Marriage is no different from a drivers license.

Its really that simple.

This is why im classified as a libertarian on this. Ron paul has the exact same views as i(who i consider someone to be a upstanding person with great constitutional knowledge).

am i a homphobe? hardly.

Do i support gay marriage? hardly.

Am i neutral? heck yeah.

Because that makes the most sense to me.

Let the flames and hate begin. Cause you know thats what im gonna get. I will be blasted for being a 'homophobe',etc.

If im a homophobe then so is Ron paul.

-edit- to add that i was wrong on ron pauls view....although i agree with him on them! GET ALL GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!

let it be a religious function.

Make everyone have the same tax benifits that married couples have. Its that freakin simple!





[edit on 16-6-2010 by empireofpain]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by empireofpain]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by empireofpain
 



The problem that creates is the way the states honor licenses (Compacts, i think they are called) from state to state. So a gay couple married in Boston is going to be living married within Texas.

The thing is, marriage should not be a government institution. Marriage is a religious institution that the government gives a whole bunch of new benefits (and fees/punishments/whatever you call it) for. For legal classifications, it should be called a "civil union", and it should be available in all states as it directly affects federal ineractions with the citizens involved.

It should be no more a state issue than slavery, or suffrage.

I would point out the 9th Amendment which states, basically, that unless it is expressly prohibited, it is a right:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


and by allowing the concept of "marriage", a religious institution, to dictate the federal standard for a "civil union" violates the First Amendment. In particular:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,v


As a Libertarian, I would expect that you would not want to see a law denying the right. Without a law denying the right, then the right is retained by The People.

Marriage is less like a drivers license than anything i can imagine. A drivers license shows that you have met minimum standards to safely operate a vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers. A "marriage license" is the government giving an exclusive right to religions which effects things like tax rate, access to benefits, and legal status regarding things like "Living Will's", etc. To get a marriage license does not have prerequisites other than to pay the fee and wait the right amount of time. I do not know where you got that analogy from.

And i don't think you are a homophobe.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I already know what way this will go.
the legal system in the US is Deist and can not rule in favor of any religion

I really don't care if to gays get married.

As a Deist i don't believe organized religions have the right to force there views on anyone.
I do not see this as a religious question but as a legal question.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Separation of church and state in the United States
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke.
John Locke,(a deist) English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control.
According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control.

I am str8 and i have problems with organized religions sticking there nose in my life style (nudist)
I just love the way these organized religions get there panties in a twist over gay right.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by empireofpain
 


The federal law does not recognize the validity of a gay marriages. Gay people cannot file joint tax returns or take advantages of all the other numerous tax benefits straight married people can take advantage of.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


As far as the law is concerned, marriage is more than just a license. People who are legally married have numerous rights, protections, and privileges non-married people have. For example, as I mentioned in a previous post, married people have tax advantages single people do not have. If gay people cannot get legally recognized marriages, they cannot get the full protection of the law.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


There is also the right to not incriminate a spouse if called to witness against them. Gay people do not get that privilege. I can not imagine what it would be like to be forced to testify against your own spouse.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


As far as the law is concerned, marriage is more than just a license. People who are legally married have numerous rights, protections, and privileges non-married people have. For example, as I mentioned in a previous post, married people have tax advantages single people do not have. If gay people cannot get legally recognized marriages, they cannot get the full protection of the law.


Thats why i support ron pauls view of marriage. Get rid of all those damn entitlements and let marriage be religious.

Of course if we did that the gays would be pissed and say "but we wanna get married".

You cant please a minority no matter how hard you try. If it was not marriage it would be something else.

You all know it to be true.

So get rid of the GOV in marriage!

[edit on 17-6-2010 by empireofpain]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I'm glad people have their priorities straight. With all the terrible things going on in the world, I had almost forgotten about those pesky gay people and their insane notion of wanting to MARRY each other.

Absurd idea, really, and definitely at the top of my list as far as things important to humanity.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I completely support the RIGHT of gay couples to marry. Who the hell am I to judge someones lifestyle? I can understand not forcing churches to accept gay marriage, but in the eyes of the State, I believe that two people should be allowed to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. I just don't see who it would hurt. Why should they not be afforded the same rights if they choose to commit to marriage?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


It's quite simple. People want to legislate their bigotry into law. It's no different than all the other minority groups we've suppressed equal rights to throughout our history.

No one has ever given even a decent reason to deny homosexuals the right to get married. If your religion finds it an abomination, that is fine and it is your right to hold that belief, but we have separation of church & state in this country. Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is unconstitutional(14th Amendment) to deny equal rights to all people. If you believe marriage should be a right only for couples who are able to procreate, then you would have to deny infertile men & women the right of marriage as well. I don't see anyone asking for that to be made a law.

It's bigotry, plain and simple. It's bigotry no matter how you try to justify it.

empireofpain gave the only sensible alternative solution that could work for everyone, and that is getting government out of marriage, period. If the government doesn't recognize ANY marriage, then at least it is being equal for all people.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I thought that the people of California
voted this down....TWICE!
So the legislature is saying that the people's vote doesn't count?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
I thought that the people of California
voted this down....TWICE!
So the legislature is saying that the people's vote doesn't count?


The same sex marriage ban was not a idea created by the people. It was an ideo propagated by law makers with deep ties to large religious organizations.

This was a process that happens every day in washington with the special interest groups and lobyists.

There have a been a lot of good responses in this thread, but here's how I see it.

How does same sex marriage, in any way effect the lives of straight people? Nobody is being gay "at" you. You're not going to catch it.

People give that excuse of:

" Oh, well how am I gonna explain this to my child?"

It's YOUR job to educate your child. Why should other people's liberties and rights be denied because you don't wanna talk to your kid?

Getting back to the point above, the financial campaigns behind Prop 8 were enormous. That was a whole lot of propaganda and using people's beliefs to discriminate against a group of society.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

supporters describing matrimony as an institution intended to promote childbearing


This ludicrously asinine argument is their final statements on this case?

Well hell, we better enact bans for couples incapable of having children and couples who have no interest in having children.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is, marriage should not be a government institution. Marriage is a religious institution that the government gives a whole bunch of new benefits (and fees/punishments/whatever you call it) for.


I would say that the government really has no business involving itself in marriage, however, I can't say that marriage is a "religious institution". Religion may have laid its claim to it but marriage actually serves legal purposes, not religious ones.

The myth that "marriage is a religious institution" is largely what fuels the opposition to homosexual marriage and the subsequent belief that we should call homosexual marriage a "civil union" or some other such nomenclature. The fact that government involved itself with marriage benefits also fuels opposition to homosexual marriage.

Since marriage serves legal functions primarily, we most certainly should allow homosexual marriages with all the legal benefits since they experience untold numbers of legal issues even if they live in a perfectly harmonious marriage as any heterosexual would. There is also no need to refer to it as anything other than marriage.

To date I have seen no valid argument against homosexual marriage...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


That's true.

But it was a religious institution FIRST. Then became a system of rights and legalities.

As far as the title, I don't care what they call it. Marriage, Civil Union, Happy Rainbow Contract etc..

As long as the same rights are afforded, I'm good.

~Keeper



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join