Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112020 times)

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #550 on: May 26, 2009, 11:09:39 AM »
Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.

and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race

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 #551 on: May 26, 2009, 11:12:18 AM »
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race

Race is innate.  Sexual preference is not. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #552 on: May 26, 2009, 11:13:12 AM »
Race is innate.  Sexual preference is not. 

I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #553 on: May 26, 2009, 11:16:13 AM »
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race

It's a 100% stupid comparison, FWIW.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #554 on: May 26, 2009, 11:16:35 AM »
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race
actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #555 on: May 26, 2009, 11:18:12 AM »
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.
Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #556 on: May 26, 2009, 11:22:53 AM »
Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.

no one claims its 100% genetic.  hormones in the womb seem to have a big impact.

sexual orientation is innate.  your sexual orientation remains whether you act on it or not.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #557 on: May 26, 2009, 11:23:44 AM »
The comparison is valid but there doesn't even need to be a comparison.

The same CA Supreme Court first decided that not allowing gays to get married violated the Equal Protection Clause

A slim majority of voters later decided to take away that right and in essence over-ride the Equal Protection clause and the same CA Supreme Court decided it as valid to take away a previously recognized
right.

The whole thing is a mess

The voters didn't over-ride the Equal Protection Clause. What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition. The Court made its ruling, based on how the CA constitution read at that time last year.

The only reason this thing is a "mess" is because the CA court foolishly decided to allow gay "marriages" to take place, before the outcome of Prop. 8 arrived from the ballot box. That, and the actions of AG Brown, convinced me that the intent was to skew public opinion to vote Prop. 8 down.

That way, the judges look rosy, no matter what. They backed so-called marriage equality, yet the people had their say at the ballot box.

I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #558 on: May 26, 2009, 11:28:39 AM »
no one claims its 100% genetic.  hormones in the womb seem to have a big impact.

sexual orientation is innate.  your sexual orientation remains whether you act on it or not.
actually not but a couple of years ago that was the prevelant thought and to this day alot of ppl hold that theory as correct...so does a genetic propensity towards violence or addiction...

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 #559 on: May 26, 2009, 11:30:19 AM »
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.

Right.   ::)

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #560 on: May 26, 2009, 11:32:53 AM »
actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.

the problem is that we're always mixing our genes.   there may be some tiny pockets in the world where the gene pool has been isolated for the last 10000 years.  everyone in that location may have very similar genes.  but world wide, none of the 'races' have been isolated.   there no set of genes that all black people have that all non-blacks do not.   there is no single characteristic shared by all black people.   same with the other 'races'.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #561 on: May 26, 2009, 11:35:03 AM »
The real downside to this decision is that we'll have to read another gajillion comments about it from Bay, LOL!

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #562 on: May 26, 2009, 11:36:56 AM »
What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition.

original definition?   a contract between two men (father of the bride and the future son-in-law), exchanging property (the bride for a dowry) ?   that original definition?

Quote
I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.

the law doesn't work like that.   the Supreme Court cannot rule on proposed laws, only existing laws.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #563 on: May 26, 2009, 11:38:20 AM »
The voters didn't over-ride the Equal Protection Clause. What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition. The Court made its ruling, based on how the CA constitution read at that time last year.

The only reason this thing is a "mess" is because the CA court foolishly decided to allow gay "marriages" to take place, before the outcome of Prop. 8 arrived from the ballot box. That, and the actions of AG Brown, convinced me that the intent was to skew public opinion to vote Prop. 8 down.

That way, the judges look rosy, no matter what. They backed so-called marriage equality, yet the people had their say at the ballot box.

I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.

yeah the voters did essentially over-ride the equal protection clause or a better word might created an exception on a previous ruling regarding the equal protection clause

again - the court first ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the equal protection clause.

That decicion preceded Prop 8.  




MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #564 on: May 26, 2009, 11:49:05 AM »
original definition?   a contract between two men (father of the bride and the future son-in-law), exchanging property (the bride for a dowry) ?   that original definition?

the law doesn't work like that.   the Supreme Court cannot rule on proposed laws, only existing laws.

Prior to May 2008, marriage in CA had one definition: A union between a man and a woman.

That definition is once again the standard, with a few exceptions, due to some foolish judicial actions.



[/quote]
yeah the voters did essentially over-ride the equal protection clause or a better word might created an exception on a previous ruling regarding the equal protection clause

again - the court first ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the equal protection clause.

That decicion preceded Prop 8.  


Actually, Prop. 8 was submitted for the ballot BEFORE the court made its ruling. Regardless of how the court ruled, Prop. 8 was going to the ballot box for election day and, if passed, would either validate the court's upholding Prop. 22 or overturn the court's striking down of Prop. 22.


timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #565 on: May 26, 2009, 12:10:33 PM »

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #566 on: May 26, 2009, 12:44:02 PM »
Prior to May 2008, marriage in CA had one definition: A union between a man and a woman.

That definition is once again the standard, with a few exceptions, due to some foolish judicial actions.




Actually, Prop. 8 was submitted for the ballot BEFORE the court made its ruling.
Regardless of how the court ruled, Prop. 8 was going to the ballot box for election day and, if passed, would either validate the court's upholding Prop. 22 or overturn the court's striking down of Prop. 22.

Per Wiki:  The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check

The CA Supreme Court ruling was on May 15, 2008


Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #567 on: May 26, 2009, 01:02:07 PM »


Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.
I hate the State.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #568 on: May 26, 2009, 01:15:55 PM »
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.
just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #569 on: May 26, 2009, 01:28:52 PM »
just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.

Yes, this would work too; but there can't be any benefits. NO WELFARE.
I hate the State.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #570 on: May 26, 2009, 01:42:04 PM »
Yes, this would work too; but there can't be any benefits. NO WELFARE.
why not?

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #571 on: May 26, 2009, 01:53:37 PM »
why not?

Freebies/welfare always create an incentive. This is why there is so much illegal immigration south of the border, for were the benefits not there there would be a massive reduction in motivation to cross the border. Get rid of the incentive and the problem automatically decreases. Simple as. Same issue with immigration in Europe. These are just examples. Marriage (gay or staight) is no different.
I hate the State.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #572 on: May 26, 2009, 01:55:03 PM »
Per Wiki:  The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check

The CA Supreme Court ruling was on May 15, 2008



Yes on 8's campaign literature suggests that Proposition 8 "is necessary to overturn [the] outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22," but the drive to put Proposition 8 on the ballot began on October 1, 2007, five months before oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. Supporters of the measure submitted 1.1 million signatures to the Secretary of State's office on April 24, 2008. The measure needed 694,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure qualified on June 2, 2008.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html

The court knew of the submission of those ballot and the likelihood that the 690,000+ signatures needed would be there. That's why I made the statement earlier.

Again, even if the court made the decision to strike down Prop. 22, the judges should have stayed the ruling until the result from the election. The fact that it qualified suggest that the court and/or AG had a chance to review the amendment for any supposed constitutional problems.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #573 on: May 26, 2009, 02:28:10 PM »

Yes on 8's campaign literature suggests that Proposition 8 "is necessary to overturn [the] outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22," but the drive to put Proposition 8 on the ballot began on October 1, 2007, five months before oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. Supporters of the measure submitted 1.1 million signatures to the Secretary of State's office on April 24, 2008. The measure needed 694,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure qualified on June 2, 2008.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html

The court knew of the submission of those ballot and the likelihood that the 690,000+ signatures needed would be there. That's why I made the statement earlier.

Again, even if the court made the decision to strike down Prop. 22, the judges should have stayed the ruling until the result from the election. The fact that it qualified suggest that the court and/or AG had a chance to review the amendment for any supposed constitutional problems.


your own link say that it wasn't approved until June.

Why should the court delay a decision on a case before them just because a ballot measure might be on the ballot.  That wouldn't be fair to the plaintiffs and it would possibly project a bias regarding the ballot measure.

BTW - who cares.  It doesn't matter now anyway and it doesn't change the courts ruling in May of 2008

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #574 on: May 26, 2009, 02:29:50 PM »
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.

you can't think of any other reason why people might want to get married?