Federal judge in CA knocks down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage

[stuntmovie]

Vaughn

[Agnostic007]

I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well. 

[Shockwave]

I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well. 

I see your point, but dont you see something wrong with someone who is openly gay in a position of power using that power to push his viewpoint against the will of the voters?
Just wondering.

[Agnostic007]

I see your point, but dont you see something wrong with someone who is openly gay in a position of power using that power to push his viewpoint against the will of the voters?
Just wondering.

But..if an openly heterosexual ruled against it.. what is the difference there? Found an article from 2003 regarding similar cases which addresses the majority isn't always right issue..

« Voting in the Mainstream PressAn Epiphany: We Technologists Don’t Always Get It »The Majority is Not Always Right
Filed under: General — November 19, 2003 @ 2:23 pm

It’s easy to forget that, in a democratic process, most decisions are not made by the majority. The people choose representatives, and the representatives make decisions. Furthermore, the courts can overrule the simple majority of representatives if a decision conflicts with prior principle (say, the Constitution).

The majority simply can’t be trusted to make the right decisions all the time.

This week, Massachusetts judges struck down a ban on gay marriage. Conservative circles are screaming that the judges failed to respect the will of the people, because the majority of US citizens polled oppose gay marriage. The best response comes from Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign:

“If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.”
(taken from a CNN article)

There are more examples of this. The French government abolished the death penalty when 65% of the population still supported it. Today, more than 20 years later, less than 40% of French citizens support a return to the death penalty.

A government that follows the majority opinion at all times is a government that trails public trends. We elect government officials not so they can take the public’s temperature every hour and spit out a statistically correct average. We elect government officials who have a certain vision of the future and a reasonable way of getting there. We trust them to work hard at this vision, to tell us how they’re progressing, and, if they fail, we punish them by not reelecting them.

The majority makes decisions of high-level principle. Once those principles are in place, a complex system of checks and balances gears up to implement them while preventing the majority from screwing it up. It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but it’s a damn good system.

[Shockwave]

But..if an openly heterosexual ruled against it.. what is the difference there? Found an article from 2003 regarding similar cases which addresses the majority isn't always right issue..

« Voting in the Mainstream PressAn Epiphany: We Technologists Don’t Always Get It »The Majority is Not Always Right
Filed under: General — November 19, 2003 @ 2:23 pm

It’s easy to forget that, in a democratic process, most decisions are not made by the majority. The people choose representatives, and the representatives make decisions. Furthermore, the courts can overrule the simple majority of representatives if a decision conflicts with prior principle (say, the Constitution).

The majority simply can’t be trusted to make the right decisions all the time.

This week, Massachusetts judges struck down a ban on gay marriage. Conservative circles are screaming that the judges failed to respect the will of the people, because the majority of US citizens polled oppose gay marriage. The best response comes from Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign:

“If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.”
(taken from a CNN article)

There are more examples of this. The French government abolished the death penalty when 65% of the population still supported it. Today, more than 20 years later, less than 40% of French citizens support a return to the death penalty.

A government that follows the majority opinion at all times is a government that trails public trends. We elect government officials not so they can take the public’s temperature every hour and spit out a statistically correct average. We elect government officials who have a certain vision of the future and a reasonable way of getting there. We trust them to work hard at this vision, to tell us how they’re progressing, and, if they fail, we punish them by not reelecting them.

The majority makes decisions of high-level principle. Once those principles are in place, a complex system of checks and balances gears up to implement them while preventing the majority from screwing it up. It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but it’s a damn good system.

The fact is that both hetero and homosexuals voted. The judge used his position of power to push his agenda.  And the bolded part tells me, that a governmental official is supposed to push his vision of the future regardless of what the population of the country they were elected to represent thinks. I dont know about you, but I dont elect officials to tell us what we want. Equal rights, its not like this is somehing that is going to hold them back from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they just want something that was traditionally a religious thing for themselves. Thats all it is. Theyre saying, those religious people have it and we want it.

[Agnostic007]

The fact is that both hetero and homosexuals voted. The judge used his position of power to push his agenda.  And the bolded part tells me, that a governmental official is supposed to push his vision of the future regardless of what the population of the country they were elected to represent thinks. I dont know about you, but I dont elect officials to tell us what we want. Equal rights, its not like this is somehing that is going to hold them back from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they just want something that was traditionally a religious thing for themselves. Thats all it is. Theyre saying, those religious people have it and we want it.

I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]

In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]

Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"

[CC973]

Open monogamy
What gays can teach straights about marriage, according to some people.



Of all the things that Tom and Tina Average might want for their marriage, one they have quite likely never thought of is innovation. It is the kind of word they might look for in the home improvement pages of the weekend paper or on their favourite consumer website, but not in a marriage guidance brochure.

Yet California author Joe Quirk, for one, believes that “traditional American marriage is in crisis” and a new look is what it needs. What does he have in mind? For a start, “insights” from married gay and lesbian couples. Interviewed by the New York Times, Quirk argues that, “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

If you are you wondering what kind of brave new marriage that would be, two recent studies give us an inkling of what to expect.

The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.

Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”

Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships.

(Note that we are talking about male homosexual relationships here. Research on lesbian couples is sparse but one study finds that 20 per cent of lesbians pursue open relationships.)
But what of the roughly 45 per cent of gay relationships that, according to the study, do claim monogamy? Their relationships should yield insights applicable to traditional opposite-sex marriages, right?

Not likely. Any apparent similarity between gay relationships and heterosexual couples disappears once it becomes clear what “monogamy” means in the gay paradigm. A 2010 study from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship.

How’s that, again?
The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples.

“All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating.” Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as “cheating” as long as it was “compartmentaliz[ed], which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants’ ability to manage sex outside the relationship.”

Where does that leave us? Using the conservative figures from the Gay Couples Study, at least half of gay relationships don’t accept monogamy. But those that do, probably mean gay-style monogamy, which allows outside sex as long as it is “open” and any emotional attachment is to the committed partner. The gay relationship model, then, allows each partner to pursue as much sex with as many people as desired, as long as the outside relationships are “safe,” emotionally detached, and transparent.

Think of the gay narrative, expressed in news stories, TV interviews, and court documents, that movingly tell of gay couples who have been “together” for 10, 15, 20 years and want to be married, just like straight couples. The heterosexual frame of reference assumes that, for gay couples, committed and long-term relationships embrace sexual exclusivity, the norm for opposite-sex couples. And surveys that show growing popular support for same-sex marriage rely on that same public misperception.

The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and “open” sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever.

"It's a redefinition of marriage” says Blake Spears, a researcher and partner in one such relationship, to mean “emotional commitment, the closeness.” As one gay man, Daemon from Phoenix, explains, “I am in an open relationship right now and it works fine… I personally do not associate sex with marriage; to me they are completely different acts. I would also love to get married from a legal perspective, regardless of who I have sex with.”

Will the gay norm of sexual “freedom” herald a more relaxed approach to heterosexual marriage, deemphasizing fidelity but encouraging couples to stay together longer? For Dr Hoff, the Gay Couples Study does just that, suggesting that open but non-monogamous relationships build trust and keep couples together, even when sexual interests wander.

Unfortunately, it is not hard to find relationship experts who agree with Dr. Hoff, inviting heterosexual couples to experience the pleasures of non-monogamy. A Psychology Today piece, for example,  counsels that, “gay couples can teach other couples about sexual monogamy,” which means to “engage in sexual encounters based on sexual attraction only and not emotions or affection. It is about sex and nothing more…any sexual inclusion is simply behavioral in nature, not relational.” Untangling the doublespeak, gay-style “monogamy” allows unrestricted sex outside the relationship, as long as it’s meaningless sex.

So what is the impact of this push to sell “open” marriage to straight couples -- destroying fidelity and gutting sex of any deeper meaning -- on the basis that it works for gays? I don’t expect we will see a throng of married couples rush out and change their day to-day sexual habits to emulate their gay friends. Unlike Daemon from Phoenix, most heterosexual couples expect marriage to include sexual commitment. They intuitively know that permitting extra-marital sex won’t build trust, but destroy it.

But marriage is in trouble, nonetheless. It is worrisome when ordinary married folks begin to hum the non-monogamy theme song, just like the secular psychologists, and clap along to the cultural beat of tolerance.

Consider this: CafeMom, one of the largest online communities for moms (reaching nearly 7 million moms a month), recently hosted a controversial discussion asking, “Is Polygamy Really Damaging to Society?” The conversation offered a snapshot (focus-group style) of the views of average American moms. Some women responded with good, ol' common sense, arguing that society should not sanction polygamy or other non-monogamous relationships because they are “terrible for children” and would “rip families apart” because “jealousy is human nature”.

A surprising number, however, took the “personally opposed” point of view: they prefer sexual fidelity in their own marriages, but believe marriage laws and social mores should broaden to allow “consenting adults” the freedom to define their own sexual parameters within marriage. One mom pointed out, “I don’t think [polygamy] hurts society any more than homosexuals do,” because it’s private and “has no effect on anyone but those in that family.”

The social consensus that marriage is a life-long, sexually faithful union between a man and a woman is fast unraveling. Advocates for same-sex marriage have smoothly and successfully appropriated the language of traditional marriage in order to win the public’s sympathy and support. The confused public facilitates its own deception, however, by its unwillingness to embrace a sexual ethic---for gays and straights alike—that is grounded in the authentic dignity of human beings.

And the longer we avoid the “icky” discussions about just what gays do, with whom, and with how many, the more likely we are to see “marriage” in our lifetime that bears no resemblance to the real thing.

One CafeMom mother of two concluded that, “a large number of Americans could care less who you marry and how many you marry.”

The big question is: Is she right?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

[ThaRealist]

Let the fairies and dikes do whatever makes them happy....Who gives a damn if they want to be "married"

[Shockwave]

I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]

In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]

Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"

Exactly. I think that since by default a gay relationship is not the same as a hetero one, they should have there own union. Why do they want ours? Theyre constantly trying to make everyone accept it. My theory is this. I dont care what you do, but dont try and make me accept it. Thats all. Im not going to bash gays, and Im not going to be a dick to them, but I dont want them trying to push their lifestyle as something that is supposed to be taught in schools, shown on TV, etc. My .02

[CC973]

Let the fairies and dikes do whatever makes them happy....Who gives a damn if they want to be "married"

Personally I could care less about their behavior.  When its all said and done they are the ones who will have to answer for it.

What I do have a problem with is when they use these bully tactics as a means to changing the definition of marriage.  I have no problem with them having equal rights under the law. Give civil unions the same exact benefits as married couples.

[ThaRealist]

Exactly. I think that since by default a gay relationship is not the same as a hetero one, they should have there own union. Why do they want ours? Theyre constantly trying to make everyone accept it. My theory is this. I dont care what you do, but dont try and make me accept it. Thats all. Im not going to bash gays, and Im not going to be a dick to them, but I dont want them trying to push their lifestyle as something that is supposed to be taught in schools, shown on TV, etc. My .02

I am not a christian by any means, but I have read and understand the bible and why would gays want to be united in a union by a religion that doesn't recognize them and demonizes their relationship?

[Shockwave]

Personally I could care less about their behavior.  When its all said and done they are the ones who will have to answer for it.

What I do have a problem with is when they use these bully tactics as a means to changing the definition of marriage.  I have no problem with them having equal rights under the law. Give civil unions the same exact benefits as married couples.

Exactly. Theyre after more than equal rights, they want it to be a socially acceptable alternative lifestyle.  
I dont care what they do, but I dont want my kids growing up seeing this shit as normal, and regardless of what those people say, a kid growing up seeing gays all over the place may think, well ive seen it all the time, maybe I like guys...

[Heywood]

I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]

In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]

Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"

You are 100% correct.  

Marriage is not part of the religious institution, although it is included as a religious ceremony in most, if not all religions.

Marriage is a part of the human institution of family.  Marriage has always been between a man and a woman across all nations, races, creeds and religions.  

Eskimos, Vikings, Bulgarians, Christians, Muslims, Jews, communists, nomads, indians, or whatever, have all defined marriage as existing between a man and a woman for many thousands of years.

The baby-boomers wish to undo this most basic of human institutions.  Nobody has any idea what kind of society or culture we'll end up with.

I believe this is being done, in large part, to collect spousal and survivorship benefits (Social Security & other pensions) as the baby boomers are now reaching retirement age.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Big Deal......


This is getting more hoopla than needed.  The only thing the judge struck down was the Proposition itself because it violated the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection.  It didn't really have a chance in court because the law enshrined that same sex couples were superior to gay couples.  Even Arnold Schwartznegger knew it and that's why he didn't throw any support behind the court case.

The judge also DIDN'T OVERTURN THE BAN because the judgement is subject to appeal from the 9th Circuit so no one is going to run out and get married.

Personally I'm glad they overturned this shitty law because unbeknowest to some people, Prop 8 also took away the rights of common law relationships as well (unmarried couples that live together). 

[bigdumbbell]

Big Deal......


This is getting more hoopla than needed.  The only thing the judge struck down was the Proposition itself because it violated the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection.  It didn't really have a chance in court because the law enshrined that same sex couples were superior to gay couples.  Even Arnold Schwartznegger knew it and that's why he didn't throw any support behind the court case.

The judge also DIDN'T OVERTURN THE BAN because the judgement is subject to appeal from the 9th Circuit so no one is going to run out and get married.

Personally I'm glad they overturned this shitty law because unbeknowest to some people, Prop 8 also took away the rights of common law relationships as well (unmarried couples that live together). 

right, hysteria

[jtsunami]

As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do.  Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on.  CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.

The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives.  Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority?  Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care?  Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence?  Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars?  The list goes on.

I guess we can agree to disagree friend.       

Azn, this isn't about the popular vote here.  It doesn't matter if most of the people in the state want it.  Our Constitution deems it illegal to give rights to one group of people and not to others, it's inequality.  That is why this popular but unconstitutional bill was shot down.

If people in a state voted for poeple NOT to have the right to bear arms, that would be over turned as well...

You just can't have a popular vote and turn over the constitution like that.  You have to amend it through congress and shit.

[20inch calves]

i say good. i don't feel that they should be able to medical care ect. from there partner THATS a major reason they are pushing for the right to be married

[chaos]

Seriously, why even vote if a bunch of fags are going to bitch and whine and have some otehr fag in a black dress overturn a decision made by the majority of the people?

So much for power to the people, I'll never vote again.

[SF1900]

I didn't vote on prop 8 I don't care much either wa, but still kind of fucked up that a judge can over rule the will of the people.

I don't think its messed up at all. When an erroneous law gets passed like this, denying people their rights, I think judges should have the right to overturn laws. Humans are irrational and emotion driven people. They do not always make the right or best decision. Why should a group of people suffer because some irrational people want to impose their view on others? Sometimes you need a rational outlook on a situation. Heck, million of people wanted slavery. Does that mean that slavery should be allowed?   Nope. The will of the people is not always whats best.

[Shockwave]

Azn, this isn't about the popular vote here.  It doesn't matter if most of the people in the state want it.  Our Constitution deems it illegal to give rights to one group of people and not to others, it's inequality.  That is why this popular but unconstitutional bill was shot down.

If people in a state voted for poeple NOT to have the right to bear arms, that would be over turned as well...

You just can't have a popular vote and turn over the constitution like that.  You have to amend it through congress and shit.

I think they should have the same right to a Union, I just dont believe that it should be marriage. Marriage is one of the most basic human traditions between a MAN and a WOMAN. What they are doing, is trying to force their lifestyle into our traditions. Give them their own form of marriage, just call it something else. Dont bastardize our tradition with something thats not even in the same vicinity. Besides, its been shown that gays dont have manogomous relationships like men and women do, its just emotional fidelity. Its a totally warped version of marriage with completely different values.
Its just a case of them wanting to force their lifestyle on the rest of us and have us accept it. Fuck, do what you want, but dont ask me to accep it or think its ok.

[chaos]

I don't think its messed up at all. When an erroneous law gets passed like this, denying people their rights, I think judges should have the right to overturn laws. Humans are irrational and emotion driven people. They do not always make the right or best decision. Why should a group of people suffer because some irrational people want to impose their view on others? Sometimes you need a rational outlook on a situation. Heck, million of people wanted slavery. Does that mean that slavery should be allowed?  Nope. The will of the people is not always whats best.

Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.

[SF1900]

Epic still stuck in the <1900's. Culture changes.

[SF1900]

What rights were they denied?

The right to get married. Unless I missed something.

[Shockwave]

The right to get married. Unless I missed something.

Last I checked, Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. So I dont know what youre talking about.
They werent denied a union were they?

[SF1900]

Last I checked, Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. So I dont know what youre talking about.
They werent denied a union were they?

I didn't know there was a universal definition we all had to agree on