Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 

What you pointed out was only part of one side of the issue that was brought up by Prop 8. At stake was the thousands of marriages that would be held in legal limbo if this went through.
The arguments on the other side were as follows:
1) Denial of marriage to same sex couples preserves marriage;
2) Denial of marriage to same sex couples prevents the idea being introduced to children or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;
3) Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children.
4) The ideal child rearing environment requires one male and female parent;
5) Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses and an opposite sex couples marriage is superior to a same-sex couples marriage; and
6) Same-sex couples’ marriages redefine opposite-sex couples marriages.
That was the entire defense for Prop 8, and the attorneys and witnesses (those that showed up) could not answer questions that were posed to them by the court.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpigCan we get some proof on that? After all if the claim is that gay marriage would open the doors to incestuous marriages and polygamy, then there has to be actual precident that states such that can be examined before all.
Ultimately the issue here is not about gay marriage rather it is about social change in the dynamic of society where one groups feels threatened and is wanting to prohibit another group from exercising the same rights. It is like a an ox being called a bull. He is grateful for the term, but would rather have restored what is rightfully his in the first place.


It isn't a matter of actual precedent. It's a matter of scrutinizing the argument that favors gay marriage. The legalization of gay marriage would in effect set the precedent. It's a matter of acknowledging the implications behind the reasoning in the argument that supports the legalization of gay marriage. The general belief in support of the legalization of gay marriage is that traditional marriage is too restrictive, and that marriage should be about equality. Which is what this thread is about.

So if a person believes in that notion, then they are also opening the door to believing that ANY consenting adults should be allowed to engage in a legal contract between people. Because that's essentially what marriage comes down to -- a contractual relationship between people (they don't really even have to love each other, as marriage has demonstrated throughout history) for the attainment of mutual benefits.

And if a person believes that gay marriage should be legalized while other types of relationships that consenting adults engage in should not be allowed to marry (ie incestuous marriages and polygamy), then they are no better than the marriage traditionalists. In which case, why should they even be taken seriously when they believe in restrictive marriage just as the marriage traditionalists do? It'd be self-defeating and non-progressive to their stance that government-sanctioned marriage should be about equality, at least when it comes down to legal consenting adults.


Originally posted by AnneeI don't mean to offend.

I personally have no problem against multiple marriages. Polyamory is on the rise (that would be group marriage with mixed gender).

Marriage must be with adult consent.

Marriage currently is about 2 people (a couple). Legal laws and rights are in place for a married "couple".

Homosexual marriage changes nothing - - nor does it require anything change.

Group marriage is a different situation from a Legal rights and afforded privileges standpoint of what is already in place.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)


No offense taken. I was mostly just examining the reasoning that's typically used in arguments that support gay marriage, which I expounded upon above in this same post.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
As an absolute conservative here can anyone tell me where in the constitution it give the government ANY authority to make any law for or against same sex marriage?

When the heck are busy bodies and government going to get out of people lives where they do not ever belong?

Look believe what you will personally but never try to take others rights away because simply put you are next if you go down that road.

Nough said!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

But how is that fair and equal to state that one group can marry who they so chose and another can not? No proof is given to support that such would allow for what is suggested, and it would be pretty much ridiculous to even think that gay marriage would even allow for incestuous and polygamist marriages to be legal in any aspects of the sense.
Is it right or even correct to set a group above another? Is it fair to demand that one group be forced to bear the burdens of a society, follow all of its rules and laws, yet be denied the very right and privileges that another group would so enjoy? Is that not by its very definition the start of segration and bigotry, to set the latter to be a second class citizen? You would expect gay people to pay their taxes, be productive members of societies, yet like all those issues that have come before, deny them the very fundamental rights and freedoms that the rest of society enjoys. The arguments are the same for so many other issues that it eventually fails and change takes effect. Yes these very same arguments that are now being presented here, and now, by those who support Prop 8, were used in history.
Lets take a look at these arguments:
The marriage of this group is unnatural and immoral.
The legislation prohibiting this kind of marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooted in received natural law.
It was even reported by the following statements: …should live apart. Forms a degenerate type; anthropologist declare that some of the most cruel and treacherous specimens of humanity are to be found…
In a court of law: Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. The are productive evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good…
Or how about: If some states were permitting marriages that were abhorrent and repugnant, that we should aim to exterminate now this debasing, ultra demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.
Unions were, somehow, a threat to convential marriage.
Allowing this type of marriage necessarily involves the degradation of conventional marriage, an institution that deserves admiration rather than execration.
“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”
These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.
Those sound like the very arguments that are being used to support Prop 8. But then again, those were the exact same arguments that legalized discrimination in the USA up until the 1970's. Seems like when one group is different from the main stream they are treated like second class citizens, using every thing to justify the systematic discrimination against that group. Are we equal under the law, if so then gay marriage should proceed, but do it like the US Navy propsed:
Put it to the churches to decide who they will and will not wed, not set legal policy.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpigBut how is that fair and equal to state that one group can marry who they so chose and another can not?


That's precisely what I was arguing against. Either every legally consenting adult can marry whom they please, or marriage is meant to be restrictive, and the argument cannot be used that marriage is about equality. Someone cannot reasonably use the logic that marriage is about equality to defend the legalization of gay marriage and then turn around and say to another couple that loves each other that they can't get married. That makes absolutely no sense.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigNo proof is given to support that such would allow for what is suggested, and it would be pretty much ridiculous to even think that gay marriage would even allow for incestuous and polygamist marriages to be legal in any aspects of the sense.


The proof is in the logic being employed. Can you explain to me how it is unconstitutional to restrict homosexual couples from marrying, but that it is not unconstitutional to prevent the marriage between consenting adults in incestuous and polyamorous relationships?

There doesn't need to be proof of an actual occurrence, because if it is unconstitutional to prevent homosexual couples from marrying, then it is also unconstitutional to prevent consenting adults in incestuous and polyamorous relationships from marrying. Do you understand my reasoning?


Originally posted by sdcigarpigIs it right or even correct to set a group above another?


Some people would say yes, some people would say no. The reality is that in society one group is always set above another.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigIs it fair to demand that one group be forced to bear the burdens of a society, follow all of its rules and laws, yet be denied the very right and privileges that another group would so enjoy?


No, it is not fair. Then again life generally isn't fair, as many people would say.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigIs that not by its very definition the start of segration and bigotry, to set the latter to be a second class citizen?


Which is exactly why I'm saying that gay marriage would open the door for polygamy and incestuous marriages amongst consenting adults. Because it would be in support of segregation and bigotry to deny them the right to marry, and it would be treating them as second class citizens. You're just proving my point more and more, and you actually seem to agree with me. I'm not really sure why you're addressing me with all of these questions.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigYou would expect gay people to pay their taxes, be productive members of societies, yet like all those issues that have come before, deny them the very fundamental rights and freedoms that the rest of society enjoys. The arguments are the same for so many other issues that it eventually fails and change takes effect. Yes these very same arguments that are now being presented here, and now, by those who support Prop 8, were used in history.


Yes they are, and these arguments to combat segregation/bigotry/etc will continue to be used as history has demonstrated.



Originally posted by sdcigarpigThe marriage of this group is unnatural and immoral.


That is purely a matter of opinion and belief. Classifying something as immoral cannot be quantified objectively. And homosexuality, as well as other sexual attractions, have been proven to be somewhat natural... at least in the sense that people cannot artificially be attracted to this and that. Sexual attraction in itself is natural, both for heterosexuality and homosexuality.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThe legislation prohibiting this kind of marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooted in received natural law.



Originally posted by sdcigarpigThe legislation prohibiting this kind of marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooted in received natural law.
It was even reported by the following statements: …should live apart. Forms a degenerate type; anthropologist declare that some of the most cruel and treacherous specimens of humanity are to be found…
In a court of law: Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. The are productive evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good…


All of that is subjective opinion and heavily belief-oriented.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigOr how about: If some states were permitting marriages that were abhorrent and repugnant, that we should aim to exterminate now this debasing, ultra demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.


All of which is subjective opinion and belief again. I find many things ugly and disgusting, that doesn't mean I have the right to deny these things anything.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigUnions were, somehow, a threat to convential marriage.
Allowing this type of marriage necessarily involves the degradation of conventional marriage, an institution that deserves admiration rather than execration.


My opinion is that marriage has already degraded itself over the years and is cheap. Marriage could use an updated definition.


Originally posted by sdcigarpig“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”


I take anything that I hear from Kentucky with a grain of salt.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThese types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.


Subjective opinion and belief again. I could easily say that disallowing these types of marriages would be unconstitutional and would pollute the documents that define America.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThose sound like the very arguments that are being used to support Prop 8. But then again, those were the exact same arguments that legalized discrimination in the USA up until the 1970's. Seems like when one group is different from the main stream they are treated like second class citizens, using every thing to justify the systematic discrimination against that group.


Agreed.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigAre we equal under the law, if so then gay marriage should proceed, but do it like the US Navy propsed:
Put it to the churches to decide who they will and will not wed, not set legal policy.


Again we are in agreement, but the reality is that marriage is a government-sanctioned institution which allows for benefits, which makes it something of a contract, and certain people are kept from engaging in this type of contract, which is unconstitutional.

As long as marriage is a government-sanctioned practice, then there will always be debates like the ones in this thread.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 





The only excuse that people can use to justify a stance against gay marriage is to make the claim that it opens the doors to such things as incestuous marriages and polygamy. Which it would.


25 states allow 1st cousins to marry (5 times more than allow gay marriage) and ALL states allow 2nd cousins to marry. Seems like the Door is WIDE open on incestuous marriage already.
www.cousincouples.com...

Who cares if more than two people (polygamists) enter into a legally binding contract together?
edit on 14-6-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)


More or less agreed. I'm just letting people know what they're supporting. I've seen people who supported same-sex marriages who also think that adult incest and polygamy are disgusting, and might deny them the right to marry because of that. And it really puts into perspective how traditional marriage supporters think about homosexuality and homosexual marriage and how they believe those things are disgusting and perverse.

It's about broadening someone's perspective and potentially allowing them to get into the mind of someone else in hopes that they can understand why someone thinks something is disgusting, immoral, or what have you... if that makes sense.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


good point.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

But to be fair and equal, it should be allowed for those who are of the same sex to have the same rights and protection under the law as their counterparts, those who are straight. The very same arguments that are used against gay marriage were once used to prevent people of different skin and cultures from getting married. And the justification that you are asking for under the law comes right from the 14 Amendment of the Constitution, as that has been determined by the courts time and time again to cover the contract of marriage. And you are using the exact same arguments without any proof that such would lead to incest and polygamy. And in the case of polygamy, it is already against the law for a man or a woman to be wedded to more than one person, as such is covered under the laws that prohibit bigamy. And as far as incestuous relation from marrying, it is the same arguments that are used to discriminate against gay people in general, as many tend to equate homosexuality with pedophile, where there is no proof of such, just used to discredit and discriminate against one group of people.
How it is unconstitutional to prevent 2 men from marrying is also in the laws that govern the actual contract of marriage. Consider this, if a man and a woman live together for a long period of time, and in most states 5 years or more, they are considered common law man and wife, with the full rights and entitlements as if they were legally married. That means they, for the purposes of taxes, medical, inheritance, property and legal matters are protected under the eyes of the law. Gay relationships, get no such protections nor are they entitled to the very same protections under the law that would be granted to a man and a woman, and the civil unions do not provide for those rights at all. That means a straight couple, neither could be compelled in court to testify against the other, but a gay couple in a civil union, could be. How is that equal or fair? It is not, it sets one group above the other, in a superior manor. And under the laws of the Constitution of the United States, it is suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law, with no one person or group set above the other. And anything that would set a marked difference, is thus unconstitutional.
But by the same logic that you are using, it seems that incest and polyamourous relationships seem to be something straight people do.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

And the arguments that I put down, have been used time and time again, to prevent one group from marrying. In this case this were the very arguements used to prevent the marriage between white people and those who were African Americans.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


How it is unconstitutional to prevent 2 men from marrying is also in the laws that govern the actual contract of marriage. Consider this, if a man and a woman live together for a long period of time, and in most states 5 years or more, they are considered common law man and wife, with the full rights and entitlements as if they were legally married. That means they, for the purposes of taxes, medical, inheritance, property and legal matters are protected under the eyes of the law. Gay relationships, get no such protections nor are they entitled to the very same protections under the law that would be granted to a man and a woman, and the civil unions do not provide for those rights at all. That means a straight couple, neither could be compelled in court to testify against the other, but a gay couple in a civil union, could be. How is that equal or fair? It is not, it sets one group above the other, in a superior manor. And under the laws of the Constitution of the United States, it is suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law, with no one person or group set above the other. And anything that would set a marked difference, is thus unconstitutional.
But by the same logic that you are using, it seems that incest and polyamourous relationships seem to be something straight people do.



I 100% agree about any opposition to "gay" marriage as being an unconstitutional infringement on people rights, up post I asked for someone to post some constitutional stance on this matter which I do not think they can actually provide .

What I think can be provided is emotional or religious responses which have squat to do with constitutional rights.

All of this controversy is basically fear based crap that if put in pratice would amount to a hill of beans on a societal level.

People if you have one shred of espousing constitutional rights then tell and show me where you have any right at all to control gay marriage.

Come on show me!.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpigBut to be fair and equal, it should be allowed for those who are of the same sex to have the same rights and protection under the law as their counterparts, those who are straight.


I agree. For some reason I think we're going to agree on a lot of things. But to add onto your quote, to be fair and equal, it should be allowed for those who are consenting adults engaged in an incestuous and polyamorous relationship to have the same rights and protection under the law as homosexuals and heterosexuals.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigAnd the justification that you are asking for under the law comes right from the 14 Amendment of the Constitution, as that has been determined by the courts time and time again to cover the contract of marriage.


That'd most likely be the one.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigAnd you are using the exact same arguments without any proof that such would lead to incest and polygamy.


Basically what I am saying is that it would open the doors for it. As in, it would allow for incest and polygamy in the context I presented earlier should people actually want to go through with it. It opens the doors, I didn't say it would actually happen. More like it can happen, and it would be justified for it to happen. So there really doesn't need to be proof that it will happen. If it does happen, it is justified.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigAnd in the case of polygamy, it is already against the law for a man or a woman to be wedded to more than one person, as such is covered under the laws that prohibit bigamy.


If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy should be legalized. That's what I'm saying. Same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy becoming legalized, because if preventing one type of marriage is unconstitutional, then preventing the other one is unconstitutional as well. That's my argument. Legalizing same-sex marriage justifies the legalization of polygamy.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigBut by the same logic that you are using, it seems that incest and polyamourous relationships seem to be something straight people do.


Polyamorous can be gay, straight, incestuous, mixed, doesn't really matter. It'd be like a bag of trail mix, you'd have mixed beans and mixed nuts. Incestuous just means incestuous, and polyarmorous just means more than two people are in a relationship. They can be gay or straight.

We pretty much agree on most things I think.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by leo123

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee
 


Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!



The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.


What about my right not to have the institution of marriage cheapened?

Because that is exactly what allowing gays to marry does to the institution of marriage.
edit on 14-6-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)




hahahahaha! really? and the media does not "cheapen" the institution of marriage already? the divorce rate will tell you how valued that precious institution is!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*


No it hasn't. Throughout history homosexuality has been a Human condition.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The truly ironic and sad part in all of this is that the judge revealed he's gay. When a gay judge upholds a gay marriage ban, you know you're in trouble.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


He didn't uphold a gay marriage ban. He upheld a ruling in FAVOR of gay marriage. Just for clarity.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


It's not really anyone's business as to whether a couple are a legal entity or not. It doesn't concern anyone but them. The contour of their groin is also, none of anyone's business so stick out of it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
These threads are really starting to irk me.
First, I would like to clarify some things before I get started...namely that I do not support Gay Marriage. It's a personal choice, and one that I believe in.
Secondly, I DO support Democracy, and a Constitutional Government that is run for the people, by the people.
I believe that if the people speak, they should be heard. I also vehemently believe in the the role of Majority in regards to matters of state.

Heres the problem with our situation in California:
The Constitution does not - I repeat - DOES NOT have any formal guidance on the concept of "Marriage." Nor does the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause (which the Gay movement uses to justify the Equal Rights warcry) grant a "Right" to Marry. On the contrary, Marriage is not a garaunteed right. Straights do not have the right to get married, and nor do gays.

Marriage, as stated in the Constitution is delegated to the states. Marriage, as correctly interpreted by our forefathers, is, and should be considered a societal issue which is managed by the States government (as the State is ultimately the facilitator of each locale's society). In California, we voted twice to ban same sex marriage. We can do this, and are afforded the power to do this from the Constitution and the power of States Rights. Majority votes, and Majority Rules - these are the foundations of a Constitional Govnerment, for the people - by the people.

Furthermore, the antiquated argument that by banning homosexual marriage we are denying homosexual's "rights" is a falsehood - as no such right exists. Any state can revoke the ability to grant Marriage Licenses at will - and deprive us all of the "Right" to get married, and they would be Constitionally within their power to do so. The Federal Government does not manage marriage licenses, the practicalities of getting married OR the presidings of divorce (as evidenced by the differing laws regarding marriage and divorce in each of the different states).

So how does this give Federal Judges the power to overturn what is essentially a states rights issue?
It doesn't.
Furthermore, how can you make the banning of something (Marriage) that isn't even IN the Constition UN-Constitional!!?!
You can't.

We, in California are being force fed (and pray, the rest of the USA soon) to accept homosexuals in our society, wether we like it or not. No longer are we a Democracy (where Majority rules) but instead steadily moving towards an Egalitarian state.

In closing - had I been a citizen of Massachusetts when they voted to legalize same sex marriage, I would have accepted it or moved. However, I'm not a citizen of Massachusetts - I'm a citizen of California and as a Majority we voted to NOT allow same sex marriages in our society and we are being FORCED (In contrary to OUR ACTUAL CONSITITIONAL RIGHTS) to accept it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
What pisses me off is the fact that the "state" thinks it can legislate for two people who want to be together at all!!

FFS

Let them marry

What has it got to do with anyone else anyway??



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

Before I respond to the posting, please accept any and all apologies for all those who may be offended by the response.

I do not agree with the statement that gay marriage would lead to polyamourous or incest, as it is a blanket statement that only leads to fear and the contention that by allowing 2 people who are of the same sex to marry. It is a strange notion, having no real basis in fact, or any proof that such would occur, beyond logic. Show us the proof that such would occur, as such would be required, beyond logic. To make such a statement, is the same to put out the argument that a straight marriage leads to child abuse. One could link the logic this way: In a straight marriage, they have children. And as 99% of all child abuse cases are from the home, therefore straight marriage should be prohibited from raising any children, for the safety of the child. Or how about this one: Straight marriages should be against the law, as it leads to divorce, 100% of all of the divorces are from straight marriages, and it is a determent to the community and society.
The logic is there, yet without the proof it is not really correct. By giving proof it gives weight to the argument, else it is nothing more than just fear and speculation. And that is what the statement that was made equates to, fear and speculation and nothing more. There is no proof that allowing gay marriage would give a rise to either incest or a multi family home fighting for the right to marry. Those are 2 separate issues, both of which have already been debated on, and fought over in not only a court of law, but also the full scientific weight behind it to not be allowed. Gay marriage has neither, until recently, either been debated in the courts or have any real scientific weight to prohibit such behind it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The first judge having to recuse themselves for having a specific sexual orientation would be the start of a slippery slope in my view.

What about female judges who hear sexual harassment cases? What about African American judges who hear racially motivated crimes cases? And by the same token, wouldn't a heterosexual judge overturning the ruling be benefitting his or herself as well? Ah. But you may say, "only if he is anti-gay marriage." Well if you aren't going to make assumptions on the basis of his sexuality, why are you making assumptions on the basis of the gay judge's sexuality? You can't have it both ways.

At some point we have to allow judges to do their job, which is to try to be as impartial as possible and to interpret the constitution as best they can. They don't always do this, and if that can be proved, then legal action should definitely be taken in my opinion. But can we force a judge to recuse themselves on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, or sexuality alone? Not in my opinion, no.

The first judge ruled that homosexual citizens are a protected class and cannot be denied due process. This judge has upheld that ruling, regardless of sexuality.
edit on 6/15/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification and typos.





top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join