California Judge rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban to be Unconstitutional


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Steven Tindall wrote:
The federal government should never tell a state "you can't pass that law within your own borders"

Then we would likely still have slavery in the south.


Steven Tindall wrote:
Kratzee wrote:

Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.

I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.

And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.

I kindda find that ironic because so many of the african american religious leaders are so doggedly opposed to saying it is a civil rights matter. Leaders like sharpton,jackson,farekan and others I can't remember point out in their own brand of logic that you can hide being gay but you can't hide being "black" so it's not a civil rights issue.

It doesn't make any sense to me but thats their logic.

I am more than a little worried by this case because of the fact that it violates a states sovern rights. The federal government should never tell a state "you can't pass that law within your own borders"

If the people of californa don't want gay marriage forced on them then they shouldn't have it forced on them. Plain and simple end of disscussion. Please realise I am a gay man but I would rather fight for true change in law and public opinion than have "activist" judges tell the people of a state your rights don't matter, we know whats best for you whether you like it or not.

To sum up, I see this as a issue of states rights to tell the feds "no" than about the civil rights of a minority group.

Shouldn't state sovereignty be limited by human rights? If a state wanted to limit 1st or 2nd amendment rights wouldn't we tend to applaud a rational appeal to the judiciary?

Isn't the first responsibility of the government to protect our rights?


CourtFool wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
The federal government should never tell a state "you can't pass that law within your own borders"

Then we would likely still have slavery in the south.

I disagree, but I see the point you're trying to make.

The Exchange

pres man wrote:
Sorry, but being denied the legal right to have a certain relation legal recognized is not the same as rounding people up. Let's leave hyperboles like that out of the conversation, they do nothing to advance the issues being discussed.

While I agree that this is probably hyperbole and a little far, I would like to point out that the government has in somewhat recent history rounded up thousands of people for possible deportation (WWII internment camps). This was done by majority opinion. The reason our Senate works by a 60% vote to get anything done is for this reason, so the majority has a harder time affecting the minority.


Alizor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Sorry, but being denied the legal right to have a certain relation legal recognized is not the same as rounding people up. Let's leave hyperboles like that out of the conversation, they do nothing to advance the issues being discussed.
While I agree that this is probably hyperbole and a little far, I would like to point out that the government has in somewhat recent history rounded up thousands of people for possible deportation (WWII internment camps). This was done by majority opinion. The reason our Senate works by a 60% vote to get anything done is for this reason, so the majority has a harder time affecting the minority.

I thought the internment of Japanese Americans was an executive order?

Liberty's Edge

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Alizor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Sorry, but being denied the legal right to have a certain relation legal recognized is not the same as rounding people up. Let's leave hyperboles like that out of the conversation, they do nothing to advance the issues being discussed.
While I agree that this is probably hyperbole and a little far, I would like to point out that the government has in somewhat recent history rounded up thousands of people for possible deportation (WWII internment camps). This was done by majority opinion. The reason our Senate works by a 60% vote to get anything done is for this reason, so the majority has a harder time affecting the minority.
I thought the internment of Japanese Americans was an executive order?

It was.

The Exchange

"Bitter Thorn wrote:
I thought the internment of Japanese Americans was an executive order?

It was. Still a part of government. Especially from an office that is rarely elected with more than 60% vote (meaning it has less legitimacy to enact it).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Ok, first, to your FB writings...we already tried seperate but equal, anybody care to remind me how that turned out?

You mean like juvenile drivers licenses? I'm not talking seperate schools (though we do have those, still into modern times. From all girl schools to Harvey Milk) I'm talking creating an institution to recognize and encourage SSLC (Same Sex Legal Contacts)

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


The problem with prop 8 and any other ballot initiatives designed to ban same-sex marriage (or deny any right), is that a simple majority is being used to deny rights to a minority. This is not how our political system was designed to nor should work. Allowing the populace at large to deny rights to minorities based on a simple majority vote is a very, very slippery slope. What's to stop people in a state with high unemployment and a large hispanic population to put a ballot initiative in that says all hispanics need to be rounded up so all the illegals can be kicked out?

Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government. The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive, but they are still a valid point to make. Most people can agree that we don't want 40 year olds marrying 15 year olds, but it can be done with parental consent in Vermont, IIRC. Indeed, most states have laws regulating who can and cannot get legally married. Laws don't have to make sense to be legal. Connecticut can choose to allow 'same sex marriage' California can choose to deny it, and Ohio can have 'Fred'. I just argue that it's NOT a 'right' to have the government recognize your relationship, and that a legislative construct should be created. Not judicial whim.

Loving pointed out that the court's opinion in its previous case was wrong (and again, it's the Supremes throwing out their precedent) because race isn't a factor, it's still a man and a woman.


[Mormon] Church Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling

California Catholic Conference

CCC's Marriage as Public Policy

the Rev. Susan Russell

Albert Mohler - A Gavel Falls on Marriage


Shouldn't state sovereignty be limited by human rights?
Can you please clarify this I am not sure I understand the statement.

If a state wanted to limit 1st or 2nd amendment rights wouldn't we tend to applaud a rational appeal to the judiciary?
I see what your saying but at what point does the sate lose it's right to govern within it's own borders. I have been in alot of diffrent states and the diffrences in places like Wisconsin vs Florida vs North Carolina are stagering. So how can one states laws be fairly applied to another state that doesn't have the same issues or may have totally diffrent issues. If New Hampshire wants to allow gay marriage then thye should be allowd if california doesn't then they shouldn't be forced. This may not be the best copmparision but it's the only one I can come up with now. This is no diffrent than nevads prostituion laws. There it's legal but in all other 49 states it isn't, what is gay marriage any diffrent?

Isn't the first responsibility of the government to protect our rights?

I see that diffrently, I see it as the government not interferring and the people being ultimatly responsible for their own rights.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Ok, first, to your FB writings...we already tried seperate but equal, anybody care to remind me how that turned out?

You mean like juvenile drivers licenses? I'm not talking seperate schools (though we do have those, still into modern times. From all girl schools to Harvey Milk) I'm talking creating an institution to recognize and encourage SSLC (Same Sex Legal Contacts)

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


The problem with prop 8 and any other ballot initiatives designed to ban same-sex marriage (or deny any right), is that a simple majority is being used to deny rights to a minority. This is not how our political system was designed to nor should work. Allowing the populace at large to deny rights to minorities based on a simple majority vote is a very, very slippery slope. What's to stop people in a state with high unemployment and a large hispanic population to put a ballot initiative in that says all hispanics need to be rounded up so all the illegals can be kicked out?

Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government. The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive, but they are still a valid point to make. Most people can agree that we don't want 40 year olds marrying 15 year olds, but it can be done with parental consent in Vermont, IIRC. Indeed, most states have laws regulating who can and cannot get legally married. Laws don't have to make sense to be legal. Connecticut can choose to allow 'same sex marriage' California can choose to deny it, and Ohio can have 'Fred'. I just argue that it's NOT a 'right' to have the government recognize your relationship, and that a legislative construct should be created. Not judicial whim.

Loving pointed out that the court's opinion in its previous case was wrong (and again, it's the Supremes throwing out their precedent) because race isn't a factor, it's still a man and a woman.

Conversely how does the the government have the right to ignore or vacate contracts between consenting adults? The government certainly does this, but what derived power is it based on?

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
You mean like juvenile drivers licenses? I'm not talking seperate schools (though we do have those, still into modern times. From all girl schools to Harvey Milk) I'm talking creating an institution to recognize and encourage SSLC (Same Sex Legal Contacts)

No, I mean like treating minorities as second class citizens by legally saying "you're not good enough to get what the majority has, so we'll give you something that's not quite as good and further insult you by telling you that it is just as good." Every gay person I have asked doesn't care about marriage. They don't care what it's called so long as they are given the same option as everyone else. They (and level-headed straight people opposed to gay marriage I have spoken to) would be perfectly fine if marriage was completely removed as a governmental function and something solely performed by a church and moving what is currently thought of as "marriage" to civil unions for any two consenting adults. For gays this is less about marriage and more about not being treated like second-class citizens.

Matthew Morris wrote:
Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government.

So if people don't have a right to a contract, why is the government involved? Get rid of contract law.

Matthew Morris wrote:
The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive, but they are still a valid point to make. Most people can agree that we don't want 40 year olds marrying 15 year olds, but it can be done with parental consent in Vermont, IIRC.

Nothing wrong with polygamy as long as all parties involved consent. Your comparison of pedophelia to homosexuality (however veiled) is what is repulsive. And in the states in question, that 15 year old cannot give consent, their parents are required to consent for them. That is no longer a contract between two consenting adults.

Matthew Morris wrote:
Indeed, most states have laws regulating who can and cannot get legally married. Laws don't have to make sense to be legal. Connecticut can choose to allow 'same sex marriage' California can choose to deny it, and Ohio can have 'Fred'. I just argue that it's NOT a 'right' to have the government recognize your relationship, and that a legislative construct should be created. Not judicial whim.

It's amazing how the judicial decisions with which we agree are applauded while those with which we don't are written off as "activist" or "judicial whim." The different branches of the government exist as a means to check and balance (remember that) each other. If one passes or endorses a law which is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of another branch to strike it down. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, it discriminated against a minority, it got what was coming to it.

Matthew Morris wrote:
Loving pointed out that the court's opinion in its previous case was wrong (and again, it's the Supremes throwing out their precedent) because race isn't a factor, it's still a man and a woman.

But...but...popularly elected legislatures enacted those laws against interracial marriages... ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!!


Matthew Morris wrote:
Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government.

What would you classify heterosexual's 'capacity' to have their marriage recognized?

Matthew Morris wrote:
The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive…

Are you not now doing the very thing you accused Xpltvdeleted of?

Matthew Morris wrote:
Laws don't have to make sense to be legal.

Agreed, but I am not sure that really helps your cause.

Matthew Morris wrote:
I just argue that it's NOT a 'right' to have the government recognize your relationship, and that a legislative construct should be created. Not judicial whim.

What would you call it? A legislative construct so the majority can enforce their will on a minority? I understand that we do this all the time. I mean, we do not let murders do whatever we want and as a majority we enforce our will on them by placing them in prison or even executing them. However, they present a threat to society.

I have seen no proof that same-sex marriage presents any threat to society. I see people claiming it is the foundation of our society, but how is same-sex marriage going to harm heterosexual marriage?

Judicial whim? Again, a little hyperbole? I do not think the judge made this decision on a whim. I think he is trying to protect a minority's access to the same institution enjoyed by a majority.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Conversely how does the the government have the right to ignore or vacate contracts between consenting adults? The government certainly does this, but what derived power is it based on?

Good question. I believe here is the section. Though I do find it interesting...

The Constitution wrote:


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It doesn't say between citizens of the same state. Unless they are dealing with property outside the state. So technically if my (ex)wife and I had owned a place in FL, it would have been a federal case.


Steven Tindall wrote:

Shouldn't state sovereignty be limited by human rights?

Can you please clarify this I am not sure I understand the statement.

If a state wanted to ban union membership, for example, wouldn't federal courts have a duty to strike down such a statute if a challenge to it came before the court?

There is no explicit constitutional guarantee of freedom of association beyond the 9th amendment, but I think we can agree that such a statute would violate the right of adults to voluntarily form groups.

This may be a clunky example, but I was looking for one that wasn't explicit to the bill of rights.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
No, I mean like treating minorities as second class citizens by legally saying "you're not good enough to get what the majority has, so we'll give you something that's not quite as good and further insult you by telling you that it is just as good." Every gay person I have asked doesn't care about marriage. They don't care what it's called so long as they are given the same option as everyone else. They (and level-headed straight people opposed to gay marriage I have spoken to) would be perfectly fine if marriage was completely removed as a governmental function and something solely performed by a church and moving what is currently thought of as "marriage" to civil unions for any two consenting adults. For gays this is less about marriage and more about not being treated like second-class citizens.

But they do have the same individual access that 'straights' have. A gay person is equally able to marry one person and have it recognized in a court, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state. Since the smallest minority is 'one' there's no discrimination.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


Matthew Morris wrote:
Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government.
So if people don't have a right to a contract, why is the government involved? Get rid of contract law.

*sigh* I'm going to assume that you're misunderstanding me, rather than being deliberately obtuse. The Government *can* recognize a contract, it is not *required* to recognize every agreement between two people.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


Matthew Morris wrote:
The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive, but they are still a valid point to make. Most people can agree that we don't want 40 year olds marrying 15 year olds, but it can be done with parental consent in Vermont, IIRC.

Nothing wrong with polygamy as long as all parties involved consent. Your comparison of pedophelia to homosexuality (however veiled) is what is repulsive. And in the states in question, that 15 year old cannot give consent, their parents are required to consent for them. That is no longer a contract between two consenting adults.

*yawn* Ah the old 'how dare you bring something up!' argument. The facts remain, that the adult is giving the minor the decision to enter into marriage. (Wrong state btw, it's MN, not VT) The 15 year old is concenting. If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Conversely how does the the government have the right to ignore or vacate contracts between consenting adults? The government certainly does this, but what derived power is it based on?

Good question. I believe here is the section. Though I do find it interesting...

The Constitution wrote:


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
It doesn't say between citizens of the same state. Unless they are dealing with property outside the state. So technically if my (ex)wife and I had owned a place in FL, it would have been a federal case.

This and the 11th amendment speaks to jurisdiction rather than the the right of the government to ignore a contract based solely on the sex of the adults involved.

As a strict constructionist I don't think the federal government has a right or power unless the constitution explicitly says it does.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
It's amazing how the judicial decisions with which we agree are applauded while those with which we don't are written off as "activist" or "judicial whim." The different branches of the government exist as a means to check and balance (remember that) each other. If one passes or endorses a law which is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of another branch to strike it down. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, it discriminated against a minority, it got what was coming to it.

It's amazing how you can read my mind. There are several issues that I might not agree with, but the courts have ruled are legal, even conservative ones. I disagree with flag burning as a public method of protest, the courts upheld it as free speech, as an example. Lawrence is another one in the opposite direction. It's a stupid law, one that should have been repealed. But the court was wrong to vacate it.

Matthew Morris wrote:


Loving pointed out that the court's opinion in its previous case was wrong (and again, it's the Supremes throwing out their precedent) because race isn't a factor, it's still a man and a woman.
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
But...but...popularly elected legislatures enacted those laws against interracial marriages... ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!!

*yawn* Strawman. Those laws were passed based on animosity. And in concurance with the 1893 decision. Now are you honestly saying that the majority of Californians, which has the most liberal domestic partnership rules in the nation, decided, "Hey, I'm going to discriminate against bill and ted today?"


Matthew Morris wrote:
If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.

I assume you mean adults.

The Exchange

Matthew Morris wrote:
It doesn't say between citizens of the same state. Unless they are dealing with property outside the state. So technically if my (ex)wife and I had owned a place in FL, it would have been a federal case.

Separate powers are delineated by semicolons. The first power is described as:

The Constitution wrote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

(Emphasis mine)

This case was argued under the provision of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. This puts the case squarely in the federal courts provisions.

The portion you mentioned applies when there are disputes about state laws between states, citizens of different states, etc., which the case was not based as being in Federal Court for.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Hyperbole aside, my stand is that there is no 'right' to have the contract between two (or more) people recognized by the Federal Government.
What would you classify heterosexual's 'capacity' to have their marriage recognized?

I'm not sure I follow you, CourtFool. I mean marriage, in a state sense, is a legal construct, allowing for recognition of the contract between two people, subject to the provisions of the state of origin. I've no problems with creating a seperate institution, call it Fred.

Matthew Morris wrote:
The Polygamy/Incest/etc argument are repulsive…
CourtFool wrote:
Are you not now doing the very thing you accused Xpltvdeleted of?

No, actually I'm not. They also show there is a long history of states restricting that legal recognition to contracts. In Xpltvdeleted's case, he actually is arguing they should be allowed, since that would be 'discriminating against a minority'.

Matthew Morris wrote:
Laws don't have to make sense to be legal.
CourtFool wrote:
Agreed, but I am not sure that really helps your cause.

Call it 'Lawful Neutral' thinking. If I'm alone on a flat stretch of highway, and there's no cars around, it doesn't make sense for me to drive 55, but I do.

Matthew Morris wrote:
I just argue that it's NOT a 'right' to have the government recognize your relationship, and that a legislative construct should be created. Not judicial whim.
CourtFool wrote:
What would you call it? A legislative construct so the majority can enforce their will on a minority? I understand that we do this all the time. I mean, we do not let murders do whatever we want and as a majority we enforce our will on them by placing them in prison or even executing them. However, they present a threat to society.

We do do it all the time. We restrict tinting on windows for everyone, because someone somewhere might surprise a cop with a gun. We require people to wear seat belts, even though the only person they're risking is themselves. We restrict alcohol to people 21+ even though for years it was 18+. Hells, we have a government now that is mandating that we have to buy a product to be legal. (sometimes it's a tax, sometimes it isn't depending on who's being addressed) We ban smoking in private businesses.

It is a legal construct. And should it be changed, or something added, it should be done legislatively, not judicially.

CourtFool wrote:

I have seen no proof that same-sex marriage presents any threat to society. I see people claiming it is the foundation of our society, but how is same-sex marriage going to harm heterosexual marriage?

Judicial whim? Again, a little hyperbole? I do not think the judge made this decision on a whim. I think he is trying to protect a minority's access to the same institution enjoyed by a majority.

See, this is the funny point. I agree it doesn't harm anyone if Bill and Ted get 'fredded' but Bill and Ted both have the same access to the recognition of Marriage that I do, subject to the restrictions of the government.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
But they do have the same individual access that 'straights' have. A gay person is equally able to marry one person and have it recognized in a court, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state. Since the smallest minority is 'one' there's no discrimination.

So they have the right as long as their decision on who to marry coincides with the concept of marriage put forth by the majority?

Matthew Morris wrote:
*sigh* I'm going to assume that you're misunderstanding me, rather than being deliberately obtuse. The Government *can* recognize a contract, it is not *required* to recognize every agreement between two people.

If the government isn't willing to recognize contracts in a non-discriminatory way (assuming of course the contract is between two consenting adults), then they need to get out of the business of recognizing contracts.

Matthew Morris wrote:
*yawn* Ah the old 'how dare you bring something up!' argument. The facts remain, that the adult is giving the minor the decision to enter into marriage. (Wrong state btw, it's MN, not VT) The 15 year old is concenting. If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.

No, pedophilia is a medically recognized psychological condition. Homosexuality, OTOH, hasn't been considered a psych condition since 1976 IIRC. Comparing one to the other validates the former and demonizes the latter. Marriage is a civil right to all consenting adults. The only time it should be denied is if one of the involved parties has not yet reached the age of majority.

Matthew Morris wrote:
It's amazing how you can read my mind. There are several issues that I might not agree with, but the courts have ruled are legal, even conservative ones. I disagree with flag burning as a public method of protest, the courts upheld it as free speech, as an example. Lawrence is another one in the opposite direction. It's a stupid law, one that should have been repealed. But the court was wrong to vacate it.

Can you remind me which one Lawrence was again?

Matthew Morris wrote:
*yawn* Strawman. Those laws were passed based on animosity. And in concurance with the 1893 decision. Now are you honestly saying that the majority of Californians, which has the most liberal domestic partnership rules in the nation, decided, "Hey, I'm going to discriminate against bill and ted today?"

And Prop 8 wasn't? A vast majority of it's funding came from groups who feel gays are abomination (those same groups should have their tax exempt status pulled IMO). The entire ad campaign was one based on fear...telling parents that their kids would be taught how to be homosexual in schools, etc. That sounds pretty hateful to me...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.
I assume you mean adults.

No, look at Brown v. Board (which I just got done arguing elsewhere that if Plessy had been enforced, would have been likely to not occured).

That specifically dealt with the equal rights for children.

Hells, where I grew up I had my first gun at 12, and was a late bloomer.


Matthew Morris wrote:
*yawn* Strawman. Those laws were passed based on animosity. And in concurance with the 1893 decision. Now are you honestly saying that the majority of Californians, which has the most liberal domestic partnership rules in the nation, decided, "Hey, I'm going to discriminate against bill and ted today?"

Considering the campaigning before the vote, is it that much of a stretch?

I understand some of the adds suggested that if Prop 8 did not pass, grade school children would be 'educated' to accept gay marriage as acceptable. I can not find the link, so I have no proof of this. However, if this were the case, I can easily see how a large enough population could be stirred up to vote for Prop 8.

Again, the issue is that the majority does not have the right to infringe on the rights of a minority (in this context, murders aside).

Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you, CourtFool. I mean marriage, in a state sense, is a legal construct, allowing for recognition of the contract between two people, subject to the provisions of the state of origin. I've no problems with creating a seperate institution, call it Fred.

So your objection is that the gay and lesbian community wants to call it marriage?

Matthew Morris wrote:
No, actually I'm not.

I disagree. It appears to me that you are equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest.

Matthew Morris wrote:
We do do it all the time.

You have a point. However, can you prove that same-sex marriage is a threat to anyone? Smoking affects others besides the smoker. Plus, it is not a full on ban against smoking. Specific facilities are discriminating against smokers. I have mixed feelings about that anyway, but it is not state enforced that you can't smoke anywhere.

I am not sure how much life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in rolled up in window tinting. It seems a small liberty to loose in order to safe guard a public servant. Again, I see no danger presented to highway patrol officers due to same-sex marriage.

Matthew Morris wrote:
See, this is the funny point. I agree it doesn't harm anyone if Bill and Ted get 'fredded' but Bill and Ted both have the same access to the recognition of Marriage that I do, subject to the restrictions of the government.

So it is just the word marriage that you oppose to in this context?

Would you agree this would present a 'separate but equal' situation?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
But they do have the same individual access that 'straights' have. A gay person is equally able to marry one person and have it recognized in a court, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state. Since the smallest minority is 'one' there's no discrimination.
So they have the right as long as their decision on who to marry coincides with the concept of marriage put forth by the majority?

Yup. Some states you can get a driver's License at 15, some with restrictions that don't lift until you're 18. I can't marry my sister (no matter the state, and thank the Divine) even though we are 'consenting adults'.

Matthew Morris wrote:
*sigh* I'm going to assume that you're misunderstanding me, rather than being deliberately obtuse. The Government *can* recognize a contract, it is not *required* to recognize every agreement between two people.
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
If the government isn't willing to recognize contracts in a non-discriminatory way (assuming of course the contract is between two consenting adults), then they need to get out of the business of recognizing contracts.

Lets see, again, I can't marry my sister. You've conceeded the government *can* discriminate on a contract between two 'consenting adults'. Congratulations, you've just undermined your own argument.

Matthew Morris wrote:
*yawn* Ah the old 'how dare you bring something up!' argument. The facts remain, that the adult is giving the minor the decision to enter into marriage. (Wrong state btw, it's MN, not VT) The 15 year old is concenting. If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
No, pedophilia is a medically recognized psychological condition. Homosexuality, OTOH, hasn't been considered a psych condition since 1976 IIRC. Comparing one to the other validates the former and demonizes the latter. Marriage is a civil right to all consenting adults. The only time it should be denied is if one of the involved parties has not yet reached the age of majority.

So you're saying that banning gay marriage prior to 1976 is Ok then. Got it. And I'm not comparing the two (you may want to ask Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Jennings about that though). Again, you've conceeded that marriage can be restricted by the states.

Scarab Sages

Matthew Morris wrote:
Lets see, again, I can't marry my sister. You've conceeded the government *can* discriminate on a contract between two 'consenting adults'. Congratulations, you've just undermined your own argument.

Except, in this case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there is a medical reason involving the health of any children this marriage might produce. I'm not sure you could make an equivalent argument against gay marriage.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Putting words in my mouth and making asinine comparisons and arguments.

Since it is apparently impossible to have an intelligent debate with you, I am done. When you learn to stop putting words into people's mouths I might come back.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Good, I hope it stays over turned.

+1


Just a thought, I really like how many religious protesters of gay marriage bring out the then you have to allow polygamy argument. However, if you read the bible, polygamy IS allowed, Rebakah and Leah for instance.

just something to think about.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.
I assume you mean adults.

No, look at Brown v. Board (which I just got done arguing elsewhere that if Plessy had been enforced, would have been likely to not occured).

That specifically dealt with the equal rights for children.

Hells, where I grew up I had my first gun at 12, and was a late bloomer.

I think we can agree that there is quite a difference between the rights of adults and minors.

In any case it's safe to assume I'm referring to the rights of adults unless otherwise stated.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Dicing up posts, sorry.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Can you remind me which one Lawrence was again?

Lawrence V. Texas. I hold with Delory Murdoch's opinion that it was a bad law, a horrible law in fact. It's not the business of the state who's in who's bedroom. It's also not an issue the Federal Government should be involved in. For a state to pass a stupid law goes back to Federalism. For the federal government to step in and say 'it's a stupid law, stop it' isn't.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
And Prop 8 wasn't? A vast majority of it's funding came from groups who feel gays are abomination (those same groups should have their tax exempt status pulled IMO). The entire ad campaign was one based on fear...telling parents that their kids would be taught how to be homosexual in schools, etc. That sounds pretty hateful to me...

Scare tactics were on the side opposed to the initiative.

Ask Scott Eckern Or others as Gay patriot has pointed out the campaign of intimidation.

Amusingly scanning the blog, you can find my support of NH's legislative method.


Matthew Morris wrote:
I can't marry my sister (no matter the state, and thank the Divine) even though we are 'consenting adults'.

Same-sex marriage is not the same as incestuous relationships. Please stop implying they are.

Yes, states do restrict individual liberties for the good of others. However, they should (in a perfect world) do it only with cause. So what is your proposed cause?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Putting words in my mouth and making asinine comparisons and arguments.
Since it is apparently impossible to have an intelligent debate with you, I am done. When you learn to stop putting words into people's mouths I might come back.

IOW, this is also known as "crap, I've been backed into a corner with my statement that 'If the government isn't willing to recognize contracts in a non-discriminatory way (assuming of course the contract is between two consenting adults)' since Matthew pointed out that if I stick to this I conceed the incest argument. If I don't, then I conceed the state can define marriage."

I've been arguing this a long time. My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.

Liberty's Edge

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

But then, I don't think rights exist. If you, personally, cannot defend it, you have no right to it. Anything that can be taken away isn't a right. You have the right to fight for your privileges, but that's about the only right that truly exists.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Putting words in my mouth and making asinine comparisons and arguments.
Since it is apparently impossible to have an intelligent debate with you, I am done. When you learn to stop putting words into people's mouths I might come back.

IOW, this is also known as "crap, I've been backed into a corner with my statement that 'If the government isn't willing to recognize contracts in a non-discriminatory way (assuming of course the contract is between two consenting adults)' since Matthew pointed out that if I stick to this I conceed the incest argument. If I don't, then I conceed the state can define marriage."

I've been arguing this a long time. My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.

1d20 ⇒ 5 failed my will save :(

Once again, this is hardly the same thing. As CourtFool pointed out, there is justifiable cause behind banning incestuous marriage (which interestingly enough is sanctioned by the bible considering the entire planet was supposedly populated by two people).

That being said, I would rather see incestuous marriage allowed than have it be a roadblock to granting all citizens at or above the age of marjority the right to enter into consensual contracts. Not that I endorse it, but rather that I see it as the lesser of two evils.


Matthew Morris wrote:
My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.

I'd guess you are in roughly 52% of the majority. :)


CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I can't marry my sister (no matter the state, and thank the Divine) even though we are 'consenting adults'.

Same-sex marriage is not the same as incestuous relationships. Please stop implying they are.

Yes, states do restrict individual liberties for the good of others. However, they should (in a perfect world) do it only with cause. So what is your proposed cause?

I don't think Matthew is making the argument that they are the same. I believe he is simply citing it as an example of how states put restrictions on the marriage contract between consenting adults. Perhaps blood tests or some other example might be better.

I, on the other hand, do make the argument that poly-amorous marriages and (to some degree) incest are very similar from the standpoint of restricting the rights of consenting adults. Setting aside incest because of the reproductive issues, it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.

Of course I'm coming from a minimal government standpoint, but I think this is a good example of large intrusive government mucking up the works. There are so many laws, regulations and social programs that are impacted by how marriage is defined that there is an impulse on both sides of the aisle to restrict that definition because of the domino effect of unintended consequences.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Putting words in my mouth and making asinine comparisons and arguments.
Since it is apparently impossible to have an intelligent debate with you, I am done. When you learn to stop putting words into people's mouths I might come back.

IOW, this is also known as "crap, I've been backed into a corner with my statement that 'If the government isn't willing to recognize contracts in a non-discriminatory way (assuming of course the contract is between two consenting adults)' since Matthew pointed out that if I stick to this I conceed the incest argument. If I don't, then I conceed the state can define marriage."

I've been arguing this a long time. My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.

1d20 failed my will save :(

Once again, this is hardly the same thing. As CourtFool pointed out, there is justifiable cause behind banning incestuous marriage (which interestingly enough is sanctioned by the bible considering the entire planet was supposedly populated by two people).

That being said, I would rather see incestuous marriage allowed than have it be a roadblock to granting all citizens at or above the age of marjority the right to enter into consensual contracts. Not that I endorse it, but rather that I see it as the lesser of two evils.

I tend to agree.

Maybe I can you closer to my side of the slippery slope argument on hate speech. ;)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

CourtFool wrote:
Considering the campaigning before the vote, is it that much of a stretch?

I've already posted links on the bile from 'the other side' on this. Heck, Dan (on GP) almost voted for prop 8 because of the bile being tossed about.

CourtFool wrote:
I understand some of the adds suggested that if Prop 8 did not pass, grade school children would be 'educated' to accept gay marriage as acceptable. I can not find the link, so I have no proof of this. However, if this were the case, I can easily see how a large enough population could be stirred up to vote for Prop 8.

I've also read that the demographics were skewed by the presidential election, since (as a whole) blacks seem to be socially conservative on such issies, but this is neither here nor there.

I also can't find a link to that lovely commercial of the 'close-enough-to-mormons' busting into the gay couple's house and ransacking it.

CourtFool wrote:
Again, the issue is that the majority does not have the right to infringe on the rights of a minority (in this context, murders aside).

And government recognition of marriage is not a 'right'. Like I said, Ellen has the exact same access to the government recognition that I do.

Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you, CourtFool. I mean marriage, in a state sense, is a legal construct, allowing for recognition of the contract between two people, subject to the provisions of the state of origin. I've no problems with creating a seperate institution, call it Fred.
CourtFool wrote:
So your objection is that the gay and lesbian community wants to call it marriage?

Personally? Yes. Legally? If the institution is to be changed then the courts is not where to change it. States can already set qualifications on the license.

Matthew Morris wrote:
No, actually I'm not.
CourtFool wrote:
I disagree. It appears to me that you are equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest.

You do realize that one of the greatest superheroines of all time was created by a polygamist? Why should we disparige his works? ;-)

More seriously, the only 'comparison' I'd make between the GBLT sandwich and the Polygamist is that both are relatively small groups with organization and lifestyles that aren't 'mainstream'. I don't have an issue with either to be honest. The pedophile movement, however repulses me, but they are organized (NAMBLA) and will use the court route paved by the SSM crowd. At least with a legisltative construct, it becomes a matter of 'you want to educate and convince the people to allow your behaviour? Knock yourselves out.'

In fact, it is Xplcive who said that anything between consenting adults goes.

Matthew Morris wrote:
We do do it all the time.
CourtFool wrote:

You have a point. However, can you prove that same-sex marriage is a threat to anyone? Smoking affects others besides the smoker. Plus, it is not a full on ban against smoking. Specific facilities are discriminating against smokers. I have mixed feelings about that anyway, but it is not state enforced that you can't smoke anywhere.

I am not sure how much life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in rolled up in window tinting. It seems a small liberty to loose in order to safe guard a public servant. Again, I see no danger presented to highway patrol officers due to same-sex marriage.

The issues with smoking bans (which I voted against in Ohio) is that you're restricting the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit. If I want to run a bar, I want to be able to choose if I want smokers or not. In Ohio one of the commercials was of a 'poor waitress who was forced to work in a smoke filled bar'. I kept thinking "How horrid that she must go in at gunpoint to work at the bar every day, and can't find another job?'

The government can't (shouldn't) regulate on 'danger'. It's 'dangerous' every time I get in my car. Should we ban cars?

Matthew Morris wrote:
See, this is the funny point. I agree it doesn't harm anyone if Bill and Ted get 'fredded' but Bill and Ted both have the same access to the recognition of Marriage that I do, subject to the restrictions of the government.

Matthew Morris wrote:

So it is just the word marriage that you oppose to in this context?

Would you agree this would present a 'separate but equal' situation?

Again, for me, yup. I'm hung up on the word having one meaning. To paraphrase Bill Buckley, "I stand athwart lanugage, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it. "

As to the seperate but equal issue, as long as they're equal, there's no problem. Heck, we have seperate colleges, seperate dorms, seperate bathrooms for men and women. The world hasn't ended.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
...it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.

I agree, however, I think it is equally intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against heterosexual marriage while accepting discrimination against same sex unions.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I can't marry my sister (no matter the state, and thank the Divine) even though we are 'consenting adults'.

Same-sex marriage is not the same as incestuous relationships. Please stop implying they are.

Yes, states do restrict individual liberties for the good of others. However, they should (in a perfect world) do it only with cause. So what is your proposed cause?

I'm not the one arguing that Marriage should be open to any consenting adults. you're confusing me with Xpltvdeleted.

I am arguing that the state isn't restricting individual liberties in defining an institution they recognize. I can't qualify for WIC for example, does that mean the state is discriminating against me? I have a higher chance of dying in an auto accident because I'm left handed, are roads discriminatory?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.
I assume you mean adults.

No, look at Brown v. Board (which I just got done arguing elsewhere that if Plessy had been enforced, would have been likely to not occured).

That specifically dealt with the equal rights for children.

Hells, where I grew up I had my first gun at 12, and was a late bloomer.

I think we can agree that there is quite a difference between the rights of adults and minors.

In any case it's safe to assume I'm referring to the rights of adults unless otherwise stated.

I'm *gasp* conservative when it comes to children, so I firmly agree in the issue of consent. (I joke that if I had kids, they'd make the Amish look hip and cool) OTOH, I do feel children do have inalienable rights. I'm just saying that the argument of (government recognition of) marriage is a 'civil right' it falls flat because everyone has civil rights.


CourtFool wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
...it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.
I agree, however, I think it is equally intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against heterosexual marriage while accepting discrimination against same sex unions.

That was the only intellectually honest conclusion I could reach too.

It's one of the challenges I have with my own party. How can the party of smaller less intrusive government support lunacy like sodomy laws? It makes my head hurt.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.
I'd guess you are in roughly 52% of the majority. :)

Actually I'd put myself in the 60%+ majority that doesn't have an issue with civil unions. :-)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bitter Thorn wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I can't marry my sister (no matter the state, and thank the Divine) even though we are 'consenting adults'.

Same-sex marriage is not the same as incestuous relationships. Please stop implying they are.

Yes, states do restrict individual liberties for the good of others. However, they should (in a perfect world) do it only with cause. So what is your proposed cause?

I don't think Matthew is making the argument that they are the same. I believe he is simply citing it as an example of how states put restrictions on the marriage contract between consenting adults. Perhaps blood tests or some other example might be better.

I, on the other hand, do make the argument that poly-amorous marriages and (to some degree) incest are very similar from the standpoint of restricting the rights of consenting adults. Setting aside incest because of the reproductive issues, it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.

Of course I'm coming from a minimal government standpoint, but I think this is a good example of large intrusive government mucking up the works. There are so many laws, regulations and social programs that are impacted by how marriage is defined that there is an impulse on both sides of the aisle to restrict that definition because of the domino effect of unintended consequences.

Thank you, that's the exact point I'm making.

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:
As to the seperate but equal issue, as long as they're equal, there's no problem.

The problem is that civil unions are not equal. The recognition by the states and the federal government is but a fraction of that afforded to a opposite sex couple. A child abuser marrying an unsuspecting person has far less hurdles to adopting children than a same-sex couple with no such history.

Also, didn't the U.S. learn its lesson about "separate but equal" already?

Matthew Morris wrote:
The world hasn't ended.

An estimated 11,000 same-sex couples married in California when same-sex marriage was legal. Where's the apocalypse? Personally, I find it more morally wrong that actor Charlie Sheen only got a "light slap on the wrist" after admitting to striking his wife.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bitter Thorn wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
...it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.
I agree, however, I think it is equally intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against heterosexual marriage while accepting discrimination against same sex unions.

That was the only intellectually honest conclusion I could reach too.

It's one of the challenges I have with my own party. How can the party of smaller less intrusive government support lunacy like sodomy laws? It makes my head hurt.

I agree. What's the old chestnut? A government big enough to give you anything can take away anything? There are too few So-Cons who forget that.

When it comes to politics, I know I'd suck, since I am a 'there but no farther' kind of guy. I'll work with someone up to the point where I disagree with them, then they can count on me to oppose them. If the people I'd represent don't like it... fire me.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
If marriage is 'a civil right' then it can't be denied to anyone.
I assume you mean adults.

No, look at Brown v. Board (which I just got done arguing elsewhere that if Plessy had been enforced, would have been likely to not occured).

That specifically dealt with the equal rights for children.

Hells, where I grew up I had my first gun at 12, and was a late bloomer.

I think we can agree that there is quite a difference between the rights of adults and minors.

In any case it's safe to assume I'm referring to the rights of adults unless otherwise stated.

I'm *gasp* conservative when it comes to children, so I firmly agree in the issue of consent. (I joke that if I had kids, they'd make the Amish look hip and cool) OTOH, I do feel children do have inalienable rights. I'm just saying that the argument of (government recognition of) marriage is a 'civil right' it falls flat because everyone has civil rights.

I suppose I tend to think in terms of fundamental human right rather than civil rights, but I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about in the context of this subject.

I would never suggest that children have no rights; I'm just noting that they are far different than the rights of adults. Of course I think there should be one age of majority for every thing as opposed to our current situation.

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.
I'd guess you are in roughly 52% of the majority. :)
Actually I'd put myself in the 60%+ majority that doesn't have an issue with civil unions. :-)

Did this majority ask how the recipients felt about civil unions?


Matthew Morris wrote:
You do realize that one of the greatest superheroines of all time was created by a polygamist? Why should we disparige his works? ;-)

Yeah, and Chinatown was directed by a convicted child molester. It's still a great movie. And the director is still criminal scum. The movie in no way validates his actions in the real world; the two can (and should be) evaluated independently of one another. (Which I suspect you understand, but are just trying to "score points" by being "oh-so-clever.")

51 to 100 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / California Judge rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban to be Unconstitutional All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.