Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 111998 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #275 on: August 02, 2008, 04:30:45 PM »
I don't see any problem with the change in wording.  It's an improvement and clarifies exactly what the intended outcome of proposition is trying to achieve.

The "protect marriage" concept is complete horseshit as gay marriage poses absolutely no threat to heterosexual marriage

I wish all ballot initiatives had to be as clear and concise with their wording and written objectives

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #276 on: August 02, 2008, 09:17:45 PM »
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #277 on: August 02, 2008, 09:52:54 PM »
Since the AG can't stop the amendment from hitting the ballot, he's trying to stack the deck in favor of the "No" votes. He's supposed to stay impartial, put the amendment on the ballot as is.

It's on those who support gay "marriage" to make their case to the people. In my view, the key to this amendment will be, as it was with Prop. 22, rallying the citizens OUTSIDE the L.A. and San Francisco areas. In 2000, when Prop. 22 hit ballot, those two areas made up the lion's share of the "No" votes.

It was the other 52 counties in California that carried the mail and got Prop. 22 passed. This will undoubtedly require a major grass-roots rally from churches and other institutions that are in favor of this amendment. If they can get the voters out in mass, then this amendment will pass.

Keep in mind that this would not be the first time the Cali. Supreme Court has ruled something "unconstitutional", only to have the people vote (via amendment) to override that ruling. In 1972, the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional. Just a few months later, the people amended the state constitution, legalizing the death penalty, once again.



Ridiculous.  Don't see how he can get away with that.  The problem is you'll probably have the same handful of judges who created this mess ruling on this AG's decision. 

Very interested to see how the people of California decide this one. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #278 on: August 03, 2008, 07:39:11 AM »
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.

that's it in a nutshell


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #279 on: August 03, 2008, 06:25:05 PM »
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.

The right to marry has already been there. This issue is about defining what marriage is. This amendment says "one man and one woman", as Prop. 22 did.

The judges made their ruling, based on how the state constitution CURRENTLY reads. If the amendment passes, they must rule, based on how it would read then. Everyone can participate in marriage. If some don't want to do so, because of their preference, that's on them. Being able to participate and wanting to do so or not (based on "sexual preference") are different things.

The Attorney General is merely supposed to put the amendment on the ballot, after ensuring that those who submitted it, followed the proper procedures. He is NOT doing that. He's trying to sway public opinion to vote "No!", which is wrong, given his position. That would be just like saying, in the 1972 amendment regarding the death penalty, that the amendment eliminates the rights of murderers NOT to face capital punishment.

Let the people look into the issue for themselves and make the call on election day.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #280 on: August 03, 2008, 06:27:46 PM »
The right to marry has already been there. This issue is about defining what marriage is. This amendment says "one man and one woman", as Prop. 22 did.

The judges made their ruling, based on how the state constitution CURRENTLY reads. If the amendment passes, they must rule, based on how it would read then. Everyone can participate in marriage. If some don't want to do so, because of their preference, that's on them. Being able to participate and wanting to do so or not (based on "sexual preference") are different things.

The Attorney General is merely supposed to put the amendment on the ballot, after ensuring that those who submitted it, followed the proper procedures. He is NOT doing that. He's trying to sway public opinion to vote "No!", which is wrong, given his position. Let the people look into the issue for themselves and make the call on election day.

Are you saying gays have have the right to get married?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #281 on: August 03, 2008, 06:35:19 PM »
Are you saying gays have have the right to get married?

How is marriage defined? Federally, it's the union of a man and a woman.

Can gays participate in marriage, based on this definition? YES!!!

Do they want to do so? NO!!!

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

The former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevy claimed to be a "gay American". Yet, gay or not, he was able to participate in marriage, as he had a wife. No one screened him to see if he was a homo, prior to issuing the marriage license to him and his bride-to-be.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #282 on: August 03, 2008, 06:38:15 PM »
How is marriage defined? Federally, it's the union of a man and a woman.

Can gays participate in marriage, based on this definition? YES!!!

Do they want to do so? NO!!!

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

ok - semantic games aside - Do people in CA have the right to marry another person of the same sex?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #283 on: August 03, 2008, 06:46:05 PM »
ok - semantic games aside - Do people in CA have the right to marry another person of the same sex?

There are no semantics involved. The judges changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to just "two people". Based on that, the folks in CA do have that. In three months, the people will get their say on how they want marriage defined in their state.

My point is that there's a difference between having the right to participate in marriage (but not doing so, due to sexual preference) and changing the definition to suit one's preference. That begs the question that many gay activists and their supporters like to avoid, namely why marriage should be changed to fit their preference but not that of others (polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #284 on: August 03, 2008, 06:54:01 PM »

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

I've had the ...uh, 'pleasure' (for want of a better word) or observing this woman operate very closely,
...and lets say lesbian is not the word I'd use to describe her, ...'ambitious opportunist' is more appropriate IMO
Others may have a decidely less diplomatic term for her.
w

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #285 on: August 03, 2008, 07:05:29 PM »
I've had the ...uh, 'pleasure' (for want of a better word) or observing this woman operate very closely,
...and lets say lesbian is not the word I'd use to describe her, ...'ambitious opportunist' is more appropriate IMO
Others may have a decidely less diplomatic term for her.

Perhaps, that's the case. Regardless, any lesbianism (actual or perceived, past or present) had no bearing on her getting a marriage license. She showed up with a man and got one.

Again, it's about changing the very definition of marriage itself. Basically, it's a union between a man and woman. Even within that framework, there are limiting factors: age, family relations, number of participants.

If gays have the right to have their preferences met, shouldn't those who like kids (say under 13) be able to have theirs met, as well. What about those who dig close relatives? What if first/second cousins simply isn't close enough? Don't those folks have the "right" to have marriage changed to accomodate them?

And, why is just two people? That's a question some polygamists are asking now. If gays can have the rules changed, then they can, too.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #286 on: August 03, 2008, 07:06:45 PM »
There are no semantics involved. The judges changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to just "two people". Based on that, the folks in CA do have that. In three months, the people will get their say on how they want marriage defined in their state.

My point is that there's a difference between having the right to participate in marriage (but not doing so, due to sexual preference) and changing the definition to suit one's preference. That begs the question that many gay activists and their supporters like to avoid, namely why marriage should be changed to fit their preference but not that of others (polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).

The judges didn't change the definition of marriage - the Supreme Court of CA decided that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitituional and therefore same sex couples have have the right to get married.

What's the problem?

Do you think anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is going to be confused b the word change?  If anything it helps clarify the intent of the proposition?




MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #287 on: August 03, 2008, 07:11:16 PM »
The judges didn't change the definition of marriage - the Supreme Court of CA decided that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitituional and therefore same sex couples have have the right to get married.

What's the problem?

Do you think anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is going to be confused b the word change?  If anything it helps clarify the intent of the proposition?


Then, what was the definition of marriage, prior to the court's ruling? And, what kept gays from participating in it?

There's a reason the term "same-sex 'marriage' " is used. It's because marriage's natural definition is that of a man and a woman.

The intent of the amendment is to change the definition of marriage BACK to what it was (what the people CLEARLY STATED that it should be in 2000): a union between a man and a woman.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #288 on: August 03, 2008, 07:16:28 PM »
Perhaps, that's the case. Regardless, any lesbianism (actual or perceived, past or present) had no bearing on her getting a marriage license. She showed up with a man and got one.

Again, it's about changing the very definition of marriage itself. Basically, it's a union between a man and woman. Even within that framework, there are limiting factors: age, family relations, number of participants.

If gays have the right to have their preferences met, shouldn't those who like kids (say under 13) be able to have theirs met, as well. What about those who dig close relatives? What if first/second cousins simply isn't close enough? Don't those folks have the "right" to have marriage changed to accomodate them?

And, why is just two people? That's a question some polygamists are asking now. If gays can have the rules changed, then they can, too.


I have no problem with polygamy

who cares

why do opponents of same sex marriage think it can be conflated with any other permutation that they can think up



MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #289 on: August 03, 2008, 07:19:21 PM »
I have no problem with polygamy

who cares

why do opponents of same sex marriage think it can be conflated with any other permutation that they can think up


Because, staying that changing the gender requirement for marriage is fine, but changing the age, family relation, or number of participants is wrong (as many gay "marriage" supporters) do makes no sense.

Back to the amendment, the AG should NOT be trying to word the amendment one way or the other. Were he doing so, in an attempt to bump up the "Yes" votes, I'm sure you'd disagree with his actions.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #290 on: August 03, 2008, 07:20:21 PM »
Then, what was the definition of marriage, prior to the court's ruling? And, what kept gays from participating in it?

There's a reason the term "same-sex 'marriage' " is used. It's because marriage's natural definition is that of a man and a woman.

The intent of the amendment is to change the definition of marriage BACK to what it was (what the people CLEARLY STATED that it should be in 2000): a union between a man and a woman.

Where was it clearly stated in 2000?

Are you referring to the ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional or are you referring to something else?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #291 on: August 03, 2008, 07:26:56 PM »
Because, staying that changing the gender requirement for marriage is fine, but changing the age, family relation, or number of participants is wrong (as many gay "marriage" supporters) do makes no sense.

so you're saying gender is equivalent to age, family relation, etc...

Back to the amendment, the AG should NOT be trying to word the amendment one way or the other. Were he doing so, in an attempt to bump up the "Yes" votes, I'm sure you'd disagree with his actions.

I've already stated that I don't have a problem with it. 

Why do you think it would bump up Yes votes.  Don't you mean No votes?

Why do you think the word change would skew the outcome?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #292 on: August 03, 2008, 07:29:20 PM »
Where was it clearly stated in 2000?

By Proposition 22, voted into law by the populace.


Are you referring to the ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional or are you referring to something else?

That's one and the same. That's why other states, like my home state of Florida, are voting on amendments: To keep the state courts from pulling the same thing that CA's court just did.

California, Florida, and Arizona have marriage amendments on the ballot this fall. If they all pass, that puts the number of states with such to 30.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #293 on: August 03, 2008, 07:34:18 PM »
so you're saying gender is equivalent to age, family relation, etc...

As far as marriage restrictions go, it is. You seem to think that it is not. Again, why is changing gender restrictions cool but changing any of the others isn't?


I've already stated that I don't have a problem with it. 

Why do you think it would bump up Yes votes.  Don't you mean No votes?

Why do you think the word change would skew the outcome?

I didn't say it would bump up the "YES" votes. You don't have a problem with what the AG is doing, because his intent is to influence the voters to say "No". If he were using different wording, with the intent of getting the voters to say "Yes", I believe you'd have a problem with that.

He shouldn't be tinkering with it, one way or the other. Put the amendment on the ballot, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, and leave it alone.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #294 on: August 03, 2008, 07:38:08 PM »
By Proposition 22, voted into law by the populace.

And determined to be unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court






MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #295 on: August 03, 2008, 07:42:25 PM »
And determined to be unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court



That is why Prop. 8 is on the ballot. If it becomes part of the constitution, the court's ruling is void.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #296 on: August 03, 2008, 07:47:47 PM »
As far as marriage restrictions go, it is. You seem to think that it is not. Again, why is changing gender restrictions cool but changing any of the others isn't?

I didn't say it would bump up the "YES" votes. You don't have a problem with what the AG is doing, because his intent is to influence the voters to say "No". If he were using different wording, with the intent of getting the voters to say "Yes", I believe you'd have a problem with that.

He shouldn't be tinkering with it, one way or the other. Put the amendment on the ballot, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, and leave it alone.

yeah - I misread that part about the "yes" vote.   I guess I would have to see the word change to decide whether it was intended to influence an outcome or merely to clarify intent.  

I don't see how you can pick and choose where to conflate gender and age (or something else) to suit your purpose.   Our laws restrict drinking based on age but not gender.  Why doesn't it apply in that circumstance?   Seems kind of obvious no?



Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #297 on: August 03, 2008, 07:55:35 PM »
That is why Prop. 8 is on the ballot. If it becomes part of the constitution, the court's ruling is void.

at the present time the court have determined that same sex couples have the right to marry right?

btw - shouldn't we just get rid of the Supreme Court and just put EVERTHING up for a vote

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #298 on: August 04, 2008, 06:41:21 AM »
at the present time the court have determined that same sex couples have the right to marry right?

btw - shouldn't we just get rid of the Supreme Court and just put EVERTHING up for a vote

State courts are guided by state constitutions. And the people have the right to alter their states' constitution. Last time I checked, we had (or are supposed to have) government of the people, by the people, and for the people.


Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #299 on: August 04, 2008, 06:47:05 AM »
State courts are guided by state constitutions. And the people have the right to alter their states' constitution. Last time I checked, we had (or are supposed to have) government of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Yup, back in 1776 or perhaps 1789...been going down hill with the 'people thing' for quite some time now... ;D
I hate the State.