Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Are y'all going to be fighting about gay alimony and gay child support when the first gay divorce happens?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?

What special rights?

reply to post by TKDRL

There would not need to be any debate, as it goes with the territory of marriage. Think about it, gay people marry, then there fore they would have to accept both the good and the bad side of such.

reply to post by zeeon

Originally posted by zeeon
The Constitution does not - I repeat - DOES NOT have any formal guidance on the concept of "Marriage."

It doesn't have to.

Amendment IX

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

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.

The 14th doesn't specifically guarantee ANY rights. What it guarantees is equal protection under the law of all citizens, BY THE STATES.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's really very clear. The states cannot decide to offer some people a privilege (that includes Federal benefits) and not others.

Marriage, as stated in the Constitution is delegated to the states.

As you said before, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. You can't claim marriage isn't protected by the Constitution, and then turn around and say it's delegated to the states by the Constitution. You can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution talks about marriage or it doesn't. And it doesn't.

Majority votes, and Majority Rules - these are the foundations of a Constitional Govnerment, for the people - by the people.

You're mistaken. Majority Rule leads to tyranny of the majority and does not consider protection of the minority rights. Minorities are people, too. And their rights and privileges are are not decided by the majority. If the majority voted that it's OK to kill black people. it would not become law, as it violates the Constitution of the US. Same with this discriminatory law.

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.

This is true. If they deprived EVERYONE of marriage, that would be "equal treatment". Now, they are depriving SOME people. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.

The Federal Government does not manage marriage licenses, the practicalities of getting married OR the presidings of divorce.

True again. But the Federal Government DOES provide benefits to those who are married in each state. If they want to remove those benefits from ALL marriages, then THAT would be equal treatment.

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.

The USA is not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic.

Read about the Difference Here
Is the US a Democracy?

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

...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.

What actual Constitutional rights? The right to discriminate? The right to Tyranny of the Majority? The right to decide who gets rights and privileges and who doesn't?

What actual Constitutional right of yours is being violated?

.

reply to post by Annee
This is not surprise, Obama and most of the Fascist behind the plans for the NWO are sexual deviants to say the least...the now Ex Governor of California is the Poster Child of this generation.

reply to post by Annee


I agree with you, equality! I am a lesbian mother with a wonderful partner and all my partner and i want is to be married, in the human rights act it is illegal to discriminate or deprive people of equal oppertunity,but yet the marriage act forbids same sex marriage? but yet gays and lesbians have less rights then straight people, no offence to anyone who is straight, us gays and lesbians are fighting for the same right in australia, thank you all who support us, love and peace and you are a friend of mine just for the support you give

reply to post by Annee


I'd actually tend to agree with you about LEGAL marriage being about equal rights and gay folks ought to have those basic legal rights with respect to each other.

I think the problem comes in fast by realizing that the term "Marriage" is so intertwined with the religious covenant of Marriage that it's impossible to separate. For that reason, I really have no major issues with the legal precedent of Civil Unions as an alternative to address the strictly legal matters here that do need addressed.

I'd even go so far as to say Civil Unions shouldn't be specific to Homosexual 'partnerships' or unions. How about the Atheist couple who may want nothing to do with Marriage for the same reason I list above in it's being inextricable from the Religious 'title' of the same name? Sounds fair to me, even if I don't PERSONALLY agree with a single bit of it. That is the joy of a free nation...my personal opinion doesn't have any real place in deciding what is proper in public policy for everyone in the population.

Originally posted by mossme89
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.

This was addressed on page 1 - - please read the thread.

Posted by Avenginggecko - “That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?’

From linked article - “In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right,” Ware wrote.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?

I love this use of the word "special" with the word "rights", somehow implying that having the same rights as everyone else is somehow a right that is not deserved.

Its very much the cousin of the word "Patriot", because if you are opposed to anything with the word Patriot in front of it, you are somehow not a Patriot.

It would be clever if it wasn't so obvious.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Couple A and Couple B are standing in a line. Couple A can get married Couple B cannot. How is it anything other than equality to say A and B can get married? How did B get special rights by being given equal right to marry like A has?

Government has no obligation to treat different circumstances the same, they only have an obligation to treat different individuals the same (and in the case of marraige they do). The criteria for what marraiges will be legally recognized are exactly the same for every person.

Originally posted by zeeon
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) . .

"WE" in California?

I was born and bred in California. So enough with the "we".

Homosexual are a part of society. Whether you accept them or not is inconsequential.

America is not a democracy - - it is a republic. The constitution protects the minority from the majority.

reply to post by Annee


wow, poor iraqi children. no one cares for them. why should we? we have more
pressing matters at hand. right? and, gay market is a big market. there's a lot
of moneys to be made there. btw this stopped being about equality long tiem ago.
only a fool doesn't get that. but hey. who cares? let's not protest against wars.
let's not make a big fuss about illegal wars. let's make fuss about gays. and
everybody will chip in. beautiful chaos, right? that's what keeps mainstream
media alive.

ask yourself, why does mainstream media care more about gays than 3000
people that died on 9/11, for instance? it's a weird world indeed.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Are y'all going to be fighting about gay alimony and gay child support when the first gay divorce happens?

Are you unaware that there are already states in America that have legal gay marriage?

Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Such licenses are granted by five states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon.

It only stands to reason you get all the pros and cons that go along with Legal Marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by Annee

 

wow, poor iraqi children. no one cares for them. why should we? we have more
pressing matters at hand. right?

This is not relevant to the thread.

Peoples everyday lives are important.

I'll just be glad when I can do what everyone else in this country can do. I'm tired of being defined by who I sleep with and I'm tired of being judged because of it. My sexual orientation and who I want to marry has nothing to do with anyone except the person I want to marry and if it is not YOU then it is none of your business. If who I marry "cheapens" your marriage then you need to take a long hard look at your relationship because what someone else does should not affect you unless they are doing it to you.

It sucks big, sweaty, donkey butt that I (and others) served honorably in the US military protecting our freedoms only to come back and not be able to do what every straight American can do. Felons can marry. People in prison can marry. Naturalized citizens can marry. Illegals can marry. Teenagers with parental consent can marry. But I can't. Sucks, doesn't it?

Your religious and personal views should not have anything to do with another person's legal agreement with another person. Just sit for a minute and take the time to think about the real, flesh and blood people that are being affected by this. Forget the impersonal terms (homosexual, gay, etc) and consider the real people affected. Put a face on it. This could be your child or sibling. What if your best friend came out? What if one of your parents finally admitted this to the world? Would you still want the government to discriminate against them? Or would you want their happiness no matter what? What if it were opposite and straight people were seeking equal rights and YOU ended up getting the short end of the stick? What would you want then? I am fully aware that this post has turned into a rant, and I apologize but the whole thing sucks and at times it is downright painful the hurtful and ignorant things people say...

PS. I'm going to start introducing myself as Abrihet the Gay and I'm going to exclaim that I sleep with women and right after I'm going to ask everyone present who they have sex with. Absurd, isn't it? So is this country's preoccupation with what other adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I really wish all the homophobes that come out to play on these forums would spend more time denying ignorance than, you know, being ignorant.

Originally posted by Tahnya86
reply to post by Annee

 

I agree with you, equality! I am a lesbian mother with a wonderful partner and all my partner and i want is to be married, in the human rights act it is illegal to discriminate or deprive people of equal oppertunity,but yet the marriage act forbids same sex marriage? but yet gays and lesbians have less rights then straight people, no offence to anyone who is straight, us gays and lesbians are fighting for the same right in australia, thank you all who support us, love and peace and you are a friend of mine just for the support you give

Best to you.

Stay strong. It really is a world issue.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

"Minorities are people, too. And their rights and privileges are are not decided by the majority."

This sentence in itself deserves an applaud.

My opinion (not phobia) nor anyone elses for that matter, should not be an issue when it comes to ideas as simple as equal rights and privileges. Its ridiculous that the opinion of a majority delegates whether or not someone can practice the same legal privileges.

If I can be legally recognized as a married citizen there is no logical reason that a gay man or woman shouldn't be. Marriage is not just a Christian idea, all religions recognize marriage, hence if denying a gay couple to marry is the right thing to do, then denying marriage in another religion beyond Christianity should be implemented also.

reply to post by Annee


Yeah right, we will see the crap start flying when the first judge laughs the first able-bodied gay male out of his courtroom for trying to seek alimoney. Able-bodied males are hardly ever granted alimoney in straight divorce cases, you think it will be any different in gay divorce?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think the problem comes in fast by realizing that the term "Marriage" is so intertwined with the religious covenant of Marriage that it's impossible to separate. For that reason, I really have no major issues with the legal precedent of Civil Unions as an alternative to address the strictly legal matters here that do need addressed.

IMO - - the argument for everyone having a Civil Union is valid. But - its too late. Marriage is the official word being used around the world - - not just in America. You can not make a group 2nd class citizens because you have a problem how a word is used.

The government license is Marriage License. When Marriage License became an official government document - - it also became Secular (non religious)

The sanctity of Marriage is really a crappy argument - - and mostly an excuse made up to prevent certain people from Legal Government Marriage.

The modern concept of Marriage is less then 200 years old. Women were property - they had no rights. Marriages were arranged for political/social standing/alliances etc. It certainly wasn't romantic or strictly for procreation or about God.

Here's a good article on the History of Marriage Licenses.

Early Marriage Contracts

For centuries, marriages were private contracts between two families that may or may not have had the bridegroom or bride's consent. Marriage was not only for procreation, but for also building financial, social and, in some cases, political alliances. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.

www.ehow.com...