RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Another comment on the applicability of Baker v. Nelson.
The brief timeline:
-In California, it was determined that the state constitution ALLOWED for same sex couples to have the right to marry.
-Same sex citizens were allowed to marry and many certificates were issued.
-This was then overturned via initiative process (simple majority vote), amending the state constitution with specific language eliminating this right.
-It is argued people were deprived of their rights.
-Thus bringing forth the 14th Amendment - equal protection argument.
---
The facts do seem wholly and considerably different from the Baker v. Nelson issue and thus might render it non-binding. Walker may be "ignoring the precedent" because the situation here is so completely unlike the precedent.
It has been argued that the court specifically did not stay their ruling with Prop 8 on the horizion just to generate the problem.
That's why I said above that Walker's decision should be stayed, to avoid the pain that it would cause of people getting married then having their marriages annulled.
I just don't see how it is different on the merit of 'Baker says that the states can define marriage, California defined marriage.'
|
So basically we are getting hung up on procreation. Well in my case both my brother, and my sister in-law are in bad positions financially with children. Both my husband and I are financially supporting them. To the extent that when I finish my PHD I am going into residency into a career I hate so I can support my blood. Even going so far as have their family likely live with us. So by that example I am aiding procreation by supporting and rearing my brothers progeny. And I am not the only example of same-sex married couples supporting their siblings children.
It has been argued that the court specifically did not stay their ruling with Prop 8 on the horizion just to generate the problem.
That seems bizarrely conspiratorial to me. Staying a ruling because one presumes a future proposition may invalidate said ruling is a real stretch. Signatures must be acquired, verified (in numbers), language approved, and then it has to pass a vote - none of which is guaranteed until it's all said and done.
That's why I said above that Walker's decision should be stayed, to avoid the pain that it would cause of people getting married then having their marriages annulled.
Fortunately, in a court case about prop 8 itself (in 09 I believe), the judiciary states annullments wouldn't be required. Of course, the pro-prop 8 people would have loved mass annullments.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It has been argued that the court specifically did not stay their ruling with Prop 8 on the horizion just to generate the problem.That seems bizarrely conspiratorial to me. Staying a ruling because one presumes a future proposition may invalidate said ruling is a real stretch. Signatures must be acquired, verified (in numbers), language approved, and then it has to pass a vote - none of which is guaranteed until it's all said and done.
That's why I said above that Walker's decision should be stayed, to avoid the pain that it would cause of people getting married then having their marriages annulled.Fortunately, in a court case about prop 8 itself (in 09 I believe), the judiciary states annullments wouldn't be required. Of course, the pro-prop 8 people would have loved mass annullments.
Not really. At that point, Prop 8 was on the ballot and was strongly looking to be passed. As to the annullment issue, I'm surprised and a little humbled that you have such insight into the 53% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 to know they'd have 'loved mass annullments.'
Even conceding that there is no supernatural source of rights, you're equating the validity of a social contract with the ability to defend it violently. There is a difference between a right being violated and not existing in the first place. While you could certainly make the argument that rights that cannot be defended (violently, if necessary) are worthless in practice, that isn't the same thing. Not even close, in fact.
TOZ hit on this before. Morality and ethics are not defined as a nebulous set of rights, nor by force. One could define moral behavior as that which minimizes aggregate suffering, for example (as I do). The use of force most often violates this definition. One could define ethics in terms of optimal solutions for communal living, along the lines of game theory, and end up with a pretty good set of "laws" that would tend to produce optimal group and individual solutions -- and which would include things like prohibition of murder, rape, and theft.
When we take moral or ethical precepts, enter them into the social contract, and authorize the state to defend them (typically by force --why else are police armed?) -- at that point only are they "rights." Until then they're morals, or ethical principles, or whatever. Still very valuable (as you point out), but not defensible, and hence not having the means to assert themselves upon the physical world. So I would define a "right" as an ethical principle that additionally carries the weight of forcible defensibility behind it.
Right = ethical principle + force.
Force alone doesn't cut it.
But an ethical principle alone isn't defensible.
The ONLY way "morals" and "rights" can be viewed as exactly synonymous is if you introduce an omnipotent God who declares and enforces them both. Otherwise, things that are by definition "right" are not automatically "rights."
Not really. At that point, Prop 8 was on the ballot and was strongly looking to be passed.
As an aside, the mayor of SF was granting marriage licenses as early as 04, IIRC. Regardless of that, the ruling opening the doors to same sex marriages came down on May 15, 2008. The signatures to get the amendment on the ballot were verified on June 2nd, 2008. While a narrow window of time, it's certainly reasonable to not issue a stay. Especially because one presumes an initiative might possibly pass later that year. Lots of presumptions there.
As to the annullment issue, I'm surprised and a little humbled that you have such insight into the 53% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 to know they'd have 'loved mass annullments.'
I never said that about all those who voted for the prop, although you've done a very good job trying to stuff words into my mouth.
I will say this, a number of pro-prop-8 people do actually hold this view:
"They have to annul all lesbian and gay marriages. Get rid of them. Throw them in the garbage." - Mark Wassberg
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/prop-8-all-gay-marriages-shou ld-be-annuled-activists-says.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704762904575025481 079390028.html
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As to the annullment issue, I'm surprised and a little humbled that you have such insight into the 53% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 to know they'd have 'loved mass annullments.'
I never said that about all those who voted for the prop, although you've done a very good job trying to stuff words into my mouth.
I will say this, a number of pro-prop-8 people do actually hold this view:
"They have to annul all lesbian and gay marriages. Get rid of them. Throw them in the garbage." - Mark Wassberg
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/prop-8-all-gay-marriages-shou ld-be-annuled-activists-says.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704762904575025481 079390028.html
Nah, it's called quoting you. "Of course, the pro-prop 8 people would have loved mass annullments."
Not 'some' Not 'a number' no qualifier.
I don't believe all of those people who want SSM want it for political purposes like Rosie O'Donell. I don't believe that all of the people who want SSM are just 'in it for the benefits' or to 'destroy marriage'. So I don't generalize.
Now if you're apologizing for tarring 53% of California with a broad brush, that's fine.
Nah, it's called quoting you. "Of course, the pro-prop 8 people would have loved mass annullments."
The "pro-prop 8 people" also means it's authors, but you're simply trying to score a point, and not even on the actual meat of the subject, it's just character assassination.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nah, it's called quoting you. "Of course, the pro-prop 8 people would have loved mass annullments."The "pro-prop 8 people" also means it's authors, but you're simply trying to score a point, and not even on the actual meat of the subject, it's just character assassination.
Ok, let me see if I get this straight. (pun intended) You smear everyone who voted for prop 8 with your comment, then when called out on it try to walk it back to 'everyone who wrote it' and then you accuse me of 'character assassination'?
Ok, let me see if I get this straight. (pun intended) You smear everyone who voted for prop 8 with your comment, then when called out on it try to walk it back to 'everyone who wrote it' and then you accuse me of 'character assassination'?
No, you got it wrong, but I'll straighten you out [pun intended]. :)
You stuffed words in my mouth claiming I meant that everyone who voted for prop 8 wanted to annul the existing marriages.
You didn't ask me if that's what I meant, which is standard procedure for rational and civil discourse.
|
|
I use Ref, yes your original comment gave the impression you meant all or most, if nothing else your lack of the word some seemed to imply it was a generalization that encompassed most pro-prop 8 people.
Mat, he didn't however say all, or most, meaning we inferred it even if he had intended to imply it without outright saying it. However you can't claim it was his clear intent.
You're both wrong, can we please move on?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I believe Discretion's comment was targeted only at the authors of Prop 8, not all those who voted for it...
Alzor, He's still attributing it to a group of people, with out anything except one quote to back it up. And the initial phrase 'the pro-prop 8 people' neither implies nor lends itself to be inferred otherwise. Not to mention, the quote he gave was NOT from an 'author' of Prop 8. The Sacremento Bee indicates Andy Pugno is the author. If he can find that Markwassberg wrote it I'll correct my statement and apologize.
So again, he's smearing anyone who voted for it.
Yes I'm going to get my hackles up because I voted for Ohio's DOMA (specifically because of the lies of the anti-group, and to keep judicial malfaence out of it) so I get a bit, angry, when someone starts casting aspersions out.
lkl: I might beleive that if he didn't pull a quote from someone who wasn't the author.
|
|
But if you have given same-sex marriages, then take them away, then it is an equal protection issue and thus unconstitutional.
Not directed at pres man just using his response to frame a question.
So if a gov't entity, say the mayor of a large city allows for licenses or contracts not covered or supported by that States constitution - those now then become valid rights? So if they are taken away at a latter point - even if their original legality is questionable - you can now bring in Big Gov't (lol) to smash the State via the 14th?
lkl: I might beleive that if he didn't pull a quote from someone who wasn't the author.
I was waiting for this. :)
(CNN) -- Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.
The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.
"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
Furthermore:
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'
" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.h tml
I use Ref, yes your original comment gave the impression you meant all or most, if nothing else your lack of the word some seemed to imply it was a generalization that encompassed most pro-prop 8 people.
I meant it's authors and primary movers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But if you have given same-sex marriages, then take them away, then it is an equal protection issue and thus unconstitutional.Not directed at pres man just using his response to frame a question.
So if a gov't entity, say the mayor of a large city allows for licenses or contracts not covered or supported by that States constitution - those now then become valid rights? So if they are taken away at a latter point - even if their original legality is questionable - you can now bring in Big Gov't (lol) to smash the State via the 14th?
That is an interesting question.
"(CNN) -- An appeals court ruling temporarily blocking same-sex marriages from resuming in California drew strong reactions from opponents and supporters of the state's controversial 2008 referendum on the issue.
Couples hoping to marry rushed to cancel their plans after an order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late Monday set aside a federal judge's decision earlier this month that would have permitted same-sex marriages to resume in California as early as Wednesday."
Not directly related to the issue, but of some interest to same-sex couples who may be thinking about having children.
Sperm-donors' kids seek more rights and respect
Since 2008, Greenawalt, 25, has been chronicling her quest on a blog, "Confessions of a Cryokid." One of the most wrenching entries came last Thanksgiving, when she addressed the oft-repeated refrain that donor-conceived children ought to be grateful they were born.
"If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born," she wrote. "We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure."
Not directly related to the issue, but of some interest to same-sex couples who may be thinking about having children.
Sperm-donors' kids seek more rights and respect
Since 2008, Greenawalt, 25, has been chronicling her quest on a blog, "Confessions of a Cryokid." One of the most wrenching entries came last Thanksgiving, when she addressed the oft-repeated refrain that donor-conceived children ought to be grateful they were born.
"If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born," she wrote. "We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure."
I just don't get Greenwalt's angst about this. There have been closed adoptions for decades. To each their own I suppose.
I just don't get Greenwalt's angst about this. There have been closed adoptions for decades. To each their own I suppose.Not directly related to the issue, but of some interest to same-sex couples who may be thinking about having children.
Sperm-donors' kids seek more rights and respect
Since 2008, Greenawalt, 25, has been chronicling her quest on a blog, "Confessions of a Cryokid." One of the most wrenching entries came last Thanksgiving, when she addressed the oft-repeated refrain that donor-conceived children ought to be grateful they were born.
"If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born," she wrote. "We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure."
Well, if I had to guess, the difference between this issue and adoptions is that adoptions happen as a result of a situation (typically someone becomes pregnant that hadn't plan to), where anonymous sperm (I wonder about egg donation as well) donation-children are "created" purposefully. Basically, someone deliberately created a child to have the situation where the adoption is more about dealing with a bad situation.
Certainly some adopted people want more information about their families and some sperm-donor people are perfectly fine with never knowing anything about their anonymous biological parent.
"(CNN) -- An appeals court ruling temporarily blocking same-sex marriages from resuming in California drew strong reactions from opponents and supporters of the state's controversial 2008 referendum on the issue.
Couples hoping to marry rushed to cancel their plans after an order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late Monday set aside a federal judge's decision earlier this month that would have permitted same-sex marriages to resume in California as early as Wednesday."
I'm OK with this; I don't think things should be drastically changed while still be considered by the courts.
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human right.
I'm not really so sure that the idea of a fundamental human right is really all that useful. It implies a kind of static nature to rights which I don't think applies.
While I have no doubt that you and I could sit down and make some kind of a list of what should be fundamental human rights I don't believe our list would sinc up all that well with a 13th century peasants views since the world the 13th century peasant lives in presents very different priorities and issues then our own.
More importantly I suspect the same is true of the future, the technology roller coaster we, and our descendants, are on shows no signs of ending and we've never been any good at all at predicting where it will go (so often things that appear to be just around the corner never become viable while things never even imagined become ubiquitous).
Basically I think if you and I sat down and made our comprehensive list of human rights we'd find that the list was completely outdated within a few hundred years. Our descendent's might pour over our list and find that a few are laughable, a couple are kind of cute and quaint...if oh so naive, two still, more or less, apply, a handful are in the 'yes, but' category and one is actually abhorrent.
I just don't get Greenwalt's angst about this.
I agree. I'd view my "parents" as whomever had the guts and the dedication to raise me. Anonymous chromosome donors would be of little to no interest. If I found out today that I was adopted, or concocted in a lab out of spare parts, or whatever, I doubt I'd bat an eye -- and I certainly wouldn't go looking for the "bio-parent(s)."
I just don't get Greenwalt's angst about this.I agree. I'd view my "parents" as whomever had the guts and the dedication to raise me. Anonymous chromosome donors would be of little to no interest. If I found out today that I was adopted, or concocted in a lab out of spare parts, or whatever, I doubt I'd bat an eye -- and I certainly wouldn't go looking for the "bio-parent(s)."
That's exactly my take on it. I guess I might feel differently if I wasn't adopted by such an outstanding family. I have nothing against my biological parents, but I don't consider them family.
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human right.I'm not really so sure that the idea of a fundamental human right is really all that useful. It implies a kind of static nature to rights which I don't think applies.
While I have no doubt that you and I could sit down and make some kind of a list of what should be fundamental human rights I don't believe our list would sinc up all that well with a 13th century peasants views since the world the 13th century peasant lives in presents very different priorities and issues then our own.
More importantly I suspect the same is true of the future, the technology roller coaster we, and our descendants, are on shows no signs of ending and we've never been any good at all at predicting where it will go (so often things that appear to be just around the corner never become viable while things never even imagined become ubiquitous).
Basically I think if you and I sat down and made our comprehensive list of human rights we'd find that the list was completely outdated within a few hundred years. Our descendent's might pour over our list and find that a few are laughable, a couple are kind of cute and quaint...if oh so naive, two still, more or less, apply, a handful are in the 'yes, but' category and one is actually abhorrent.
This outlines part of the problem with any list of rights. It was a concern of the federalists and the anti federalist. They were deeply concerned that the Bill of Rights would come to be seen as a list of privileges granted by the state. The 9th amendment was included to address those concerns. Unfortunately they were prescient in these concerns, and the 9th amendment is basically a dead letter. It irritates me every time someone says the constitution gives them X right.
This is why I tend view rights as extensions of self ownership.
As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.
Don't need one. The constitution just so happens to forbid denying privileges in an unfair manner, so even if marriage is constitutionally a privilege, it still needs to be handed out fairly.
Oh, and the constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them.
More thread necromancy?As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.Don't need one. The constitution just so happens to forbid denying privileges in an unfair manner, so even if marriage is constitutionally a privilege, it still needs to be handed out fairly.
Yup. Undead are my favorite monster type, after all.