Should gay marriage be voted on by states or made a federal law

You are really stretching it. Where is your proof that the court shares your interpretation of Loving V? There was nothing in Loving V that even remoted suggests that court intended the blanket endorsement that you are laying on it.

Again, Prop 8 was a state issue, that changed the California State Constitution to ban same sex marriage. That is different from endorsing same sex marriage. That is not a rattification of same sex marriage. Two the only court that matters in this particular discussion is the federal judicary since we are talking about an interstate issue. This is clearly a national debate, not a state debate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again this should stay at state. If not everyone applying for a marriage license would have applied to the federal government think of all the backlog for a license. An I did not think this thread was to argue about equality. Of gays but the marriage of them. Every one is created equal but we are all to be treated fairly I think martin l king saw to that. An we still have lots of infighting about certain equalities. But marriage should not be one of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think it remains dormant at all. The gene I've read that causes homosexuality is the same one that causes increased heterosexual attraction. It's only that sometimes it gets misplaced in the "wrong" sex.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes there is, and I just explained it to you.

So was Loving V, Joe. Loving V was not the ratification of interracial marriage, but the repeal of state laws banning interracial marriage (among other things). It's the same thing.

Then you're still wrong, because Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

 

No you gave your interpretation, which is not the court's interpretation. There is nothing in Loving V that addresses same sex marriage. In fact the paragraph you have referenced clearly refers to marriage as important to the propagation of the species. At the time of the decision, gay couples could not propagate. You try to get around that by injecting your interpertation which is not based on fact or reason, but merely your bias and opinion.

No it is not the same thing as same sex marriage. Using your logic, people could marry cows, pigs, or even cars and trees. And you still have the problem of getting a court to back your interpretation.

Prop 8 was a state issue changing the California State Constitution to define marriages as a union between individuals of opposite sex. A number of states have passed similar laws that have been upheld. And the decision is still out on Prop 8, a stay order in effect. If you are gay couple in California, you cannot get legally married today because of the court ordered stay.

Further Prop 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court. The most liberal federal court in the land did overturn Prop 8 under the Due Process Clause. And the liberal federal appeals court sustained it, but that court also issued a stay. In effect nullifying it's decision until a final decision is rendered. As a result gay couples still cannot get legally married in California.

As I have said repeatedly in this thread and will say again, regardless of the merits, same sex marriage is dead on arrival in the federal courts. If this should make it to the Supreme Court, given the makeup of the US Supreme Court and it's propensity for conservative judicial activism, gay marriage is a dead issue on arrival.

 

We've already been over this. Of course Loving V doesn't address same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage wasn't a consideration at the time. Nor does the case have to be about same-sex marriage to be relevant to it. Why is this such a hard thing to understand? The principals cited for that ruling could easily be applied to same-sex marriage.

He doesn't say propagation of the species, he says survival. He doesn't say children may only be born to married couples, nor would he, because that would be a ridiculously absurd proposition. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say "at the time homosexual couples couldn't propagate" because the comment was not a contrast to homosexual unions. Clearly the ruling is talking about the solidarity of the family unit--just as homophobic bigots are doing today--as being vital to the species. It's not a new argument, nor was it at the time of the ruling.

My logic? No, that particular brand of slippery-slope BS is standard homophobic, heterosupremacist rote. There is nothing about my argument that could lead you to say "Well, apply it then to cows and pigs, or even machines." That's your own invention--well, to be fair, it's isn't your invention so much as it's someone else's bigoted logic that you're regurgitating to suit your purposes.

The 14th Amendment allows for reasonable classifications. Applying equal protection to homosexuals does not therefore open up the floodgates for state-sanctioned beastiality or Man-Volvo Tailpipe unions.

The tide is turning on that front. A federal court of appeals found a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, so there's that. States are beginning to legalize these unions rather than simply recognizing them when transferred from Vermont. Prop 8's defeat (which may already be an ultimate defeat) is perhaps the fatal blow against a ban on same-sex marriage, in which case it is just a matter of states legalizing them.

The decision is not out. The decision has been made. What's out is whether or not the supreme court will decide to see the case. If not, then the show is over and Prop 8's initial defeat will stand. It will also set the precedent for future appeals of bans in other states (which, as far as I'm aware, have not actually had to withstand any legal challenges on a federal level), which will begin to fall like dominoes.

As I said above, the final decision may have already been rendered. What's being waited upon now is simply the decision of the supreme court of the United States of whether or not they'll hear the case. In order for Prop 8 to win, they have to win twice--first by the court agreeing to hear the case, and then by reinstating the law. All the other side needs to do is have the court say they won't hear it (which is currently the prevailing opinion among legal experts), and the game's over.

I'm well aware that you've said it, but no one is particularly concerned with your opinions when you can't support them. I have already defeated your facile arguments and demonstrated that your insistence is nothing more than wish-thinking. You want gay rights to lose, nothing more.

 

I get what you are trying to do. But why don’t you understand the case you cited does not say that marriage is an unrestricted right. It does not say that marriage can be redefined on a whim to whatever you might want it to be. It does say discrimination based on race is illegal.

No but it is clearly what he is referring to. Species do not survive if they do not propagate. And marriage has historically been an institution critical to the propagation of the species. What does solidarity of the family unit have to do with an entitlement to same sex marriage? Nothing. You are desperately looking for something, anything to support your opinion.

Yes your logic. An unrestricted right to marry which you are/were claiming the 14th Amendment provides you, can yield some interesting and unintended consequences. The point that seems to elude you is that marriage is not an unrestricted right. No one is saying that there is anything wrong with homosexual marriages. That is you going off the deep end with name calling as an attempt to cover up holes in your argument. What is being said is marriage is a restricted right.

No one is arguing reasonable classifications. What is being argued is your claim that the 14th Amendment provides an unrestricted right to marriage. It doesn’t. The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race and sex, not sexual preference. It has nothing to do with sexual preference or same sex marriage unless and until the Supreme Court of the land says otherwise. Something you feel they should do, but something they have not yet done. So if you are to be taken seriously, you are now admitting that the 14th Amendment does not provide an unrestricted right to marriage.

Only six states have passed same sex marriage laws. Another 28 states have passed amendments to their constitutions forbidding same sex marriages. If the tide is turning, it is not much of a tide. And the federal court which overturned the State Supreme Court issued a stay. So the issue is not settled. Stays are not issued when everything has been resolved.

The decision clearly is "out", and if you look at your next paragraph, you admit the decision is not final. You are contradicting yourself.

You are contradicting yourself, first it is final, then it’s “may have” been rendered final. It is clearly not final until the federal Supreme Court weighs in on the issue. My point to you is this Supreme Court has taken court cases legal scholars thought they would not take (e.g. Bush V Gore, Citizens United, and heathcare reform). And the court has ruled in ways that has defied the weight of legal opinion time and time again in favor of political ideology. I expect it will be no different with the same sex marriage issue. You have 28 red states with very conservative governments appealing to a very conservative and ideologically driven supreme court. So I would not be counting your chickens before the eggs hatch. Now I pray I am wrong about this Supreme Court, I keep hoping they will surprise me. But in case after case, they have let politicial ideology trump the rule of law and reason.

Oh so now you are speaking for everyone? When you have to beat on your chest, make grandiose claims, and call people names, my guess is you are not winning. Additionally, you are obviously not paying attention because long ago in this thread, I stated quite clearly that I am not against same sex marriage. I don’t care if two men or two women marry each other. It doesn’t concern me. I think marriage as an institution is rather silly and antiquated in todays society. I went on to say that in my view the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot and that at some point same sex marriage will become the law of the land. It just won’t be anytime soon because of our very conservative and ideologically driven supreme court.

What does concern me is when people on either end of the political spectrum, get fast and loose with the facts and reason to support their ideologically driven notions.

 

Gay marriage is good for the economy. The lawyers are going to clean up.
Gays are difficult people to live with. A lot of nasty expensive divorces to be
expected. Money spreading out like Romney spending political dollars.
Good for the economy.
This is not to be confused with trickle-down, which doesn't work as a planned, rational movement.
More wealthy should practice throwing money away like there's no tomorrow.
Really feeds the wheels of the economy.

 

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.

It was discovered that Proposition 8 had no purpose other than to impose the majority's private disapproval of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the public law, and to take away from them the designation of marriage and its recognized societal status. The findings of fact and expert witness testimony in District Court played an important role in this appellate decision, emphasizing that it is unreasonable to believe Proposition 8 was enacted to: promote childrearing by biological parents, encourage procreation, be cautious in social change, protect religious liberty, or control children's education. The court declared that it is "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Ruling

A Federal Court has so ruled. If they follow the Constitution, so will SCOTUS. You are on the wrong side of history, as is the whole Rethuglican Party.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A couple of minor points Grumpy, not that they will matter to you. One this is just a repeat of previous discussion. Two, who's side am I on? If you had read this thread, you would know the answer. I have been saying all along, unless and until the Supreme Court sides with your opinion, same sex marriage will not be the law of the land. And given the the actions of this Supreme Court, being a highly conservative and ideological court, I just don't see them siding with the liberals on this issue. This court has always allowed conservative political ideology to trump law and precedent. Now I hope I the court changes course, but I just don't see it.

 

now that you have said that, i think i have read that some where also..(of course i could have read that here somewhere..)

 

you All may ignore me. I Am tired of reading this dribble.

 

ok..

 

On the issue of why gays want rights to marriage...

I've read several posts that seem to say, "If that makes them happy, they should..."

It is not that simple, nor a matter of who sanctions the marriage.

The issue at hand is the great many laws already on the books that determine the differences in how single or married people are treated. It is these laws that are the issue, not an individuals happiness.
One of the heftier issues is insurance, taxes and finances. Being 'single' in these qualifications can cost you a pretty penny.

But the biggest, in my opinion, is how these people are treated in a crisis.

If any of you readers have ever had trouble visiting someone in the hospital, then you know what I mean.

For myself, I ran into that legal nightmare just trying to visit my son in the hospital. Even was pulled aside by two city police officers who questioned me, while another questioned my sons mother (Their conclusion was that everything was alright and no police enforcement was necessary) as well as the hospital refusing to "confirm or deny" that my son was in the hospital.

It's a bit traumatic. Kinda stressful, you know?

In my situation it took all of ten minutes to resolve. But I'm not gay and that was my child, not a man-lover.
Had I been and had that been, and even if he was on his death bed, his last moments fading away- The Right to see him would have been ripped away, that final goodbye that people considered, "in the status quo" are granted,would have been denied to me.

All because of archaic superstitious discrimination.

There are so many laws already on the books that deal with how married couples are treated and how single people are. The trouble is that most single people are not single.
When it comes to the rights of homosexuals to be treated fairly and equally, I find it appalling that one can be denied the right to see his loved one in the hospital while that right is granted to others. For such trivial and absurd reasons as a lack of understanding about another persons personal attraction.

I do not think it's a matter of morality and ethics as these Christians claim. Rather, they are punishing a group whom they disagree with for not adhering to their doctrine; it is heartless and cruel; not moral; not ethical.

http://progressive.org/media_1615

This is One Example.

One I read was where a couple of over thirty years had this issue and the partner was denied ALL rights, for months while his loved one wasted away in the hospital, until he died, not having seen his partner while dying slowly over many months in the hospital. It's an old article and I ran a search for it. I could not find that one; I posted a similar one instead...

Can you imagine if that was your spouse? Denied to see them while they are in their last moments- asking to see you, asking where you are...? Perhaps that presence of your loved one can give one the impetus to fight harder for life. Or at the very least, make passing away a little more comfortable. Not alone.
Can you imagine being denied the right to make decisions for your spouse?
Can you imagine being denied the right to handle the estate and having your shared things, mementos and personal artifacts taken over and dispensed with by the state?

Who, in good conscience can submit others to this treatment simply because their qualifications for attraction are different?

 

How about getting rid of state sanctioned marriage for everyone? Why do we need state sanctioned marriage?

 

The magnitude of the infrastructure already in place. All the laws and associations that concern how married couples are treated, taxed, etc... It really is a lot on the books.

You're idea is sound. Do not get me wrong. The application of it is a nightmare of standing policies, regulations and laws that cannot be crashed without crashing a great deal of other financial associations.

It's easier to just let 'em get hitched.

 

Just pointing out a lack of "congruence" in what you have posted here. (that means that you contradict yourself)

At this point your' extreme bias in this issue is blatantly obvious and the fact that you have indeed spent vastly more time thinking about it that you will readily admit leads the reader to wonder why.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then you should be able to point out those imagined "inconsistencies and contradictions?

Just what is extreme about my position? Pointing out your errrors in fact and reason is extreme? Pointing out fact is not extreme either. My opinion, which you would know if you had read, is neither for nor against same sex marriage. And you think a neutral position on the issue is extreme? I think that says more about you friend than it does me. Only in the world of an extremist can a neutral position be characterized as an extremist position.

 

joepistole

If the question was one of a black person's civil rights(as illustrated by Loving)the question would answer itself. Equal treatment under the law is applicable to everyone, barring rational cause. As the 9th Curcuit opinion clearly stated, no rational cause has been presented regarding Prop 8. As the full faith principle of the Commerce Clause means states must recognize those legal marriages(occurring today)as legitimate. Bottom line, the Prop 8 proponents stand no legal or Constitutional chance in the Supreme Court and gay marriage will become the law of the land. The choice of the main lawyers who argued Bush v Gore as the team that is arguing the pro gay marriage side(Boyes and Olsen)should have these homophobic regressives shaking, they are going to lose big. Even if the four horse's butts of the Apocolypse are content to look like fools and hacks in history, Kennedy is not.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As pointed out to you numerous times the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuality – one of them minor details. You can say it until the cows come home. But it will not make it true. It is perfectly legal to discriminate in this country based on sexual orientation. Up until recently homosexuals were discriminated against in the military. It took an act of Congress to change that. It was not changed by a unique ruling of the 14th Amendment.

It does my heart good to see you start to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause which I pointed out to you earlier as the best justification for your cause. But there is a lot of room for interpretation in the clause, judgments and laws are treated differently under the clause with more difference accorded judgements than laws.

What you are doing is confusing legal argument with moral argument. They are very different. It is and remains perfectly legal in this country to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a protected right. You can argue that it should be. And if you did, I might agree with you. But that is a moral opinion and is not representative of the law.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it is not an opinion based on fact or reason or history. This court has never shown an ability to do anything but rule conservative party line which does not support same sex marriage. As I said before, I hope this court will prove me wrong. But after more than a decade, they have never failed to act in accordance with Republican Party poltiics.

p.s. The Commerce Clause is in Article I of the Constitution as an enumerated Power. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is in Article IV of the Constitution. They are not the same.