Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

dixon76710 said:
...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT
Click to expand...

As thinking beings, we can decide for ourselves, whether to procreate or not. It is not a foregone conclusion. Companionship is the ultimate goal...not offspiring.
 
dixon76710 said:
Dont be silly. Improving the well being of children is a legitimate governmental interest. Enslaving the chinese is not.
Click to expand...



Really? So, these same-sex couples who adopt children - taking them out of the State welfare system (where they were placed by heterosexuals, by the by) and taking on the burden of raising these children abandoned by their heterosexual parents - these couples provide no " well being of children as a legitimate govermental interest" to the state?

So, you believe that heterosexuals should be able to just pop out children and place the burden of raising them on other people and all the while enjoy the benefits of marriage just because they are capable of being baby factories? They don't actually have to raise them? And those that do choose to raise them... choose to take on that burden from the State... these couples provide no benefit to the State?

Is that what you are saying?
 
Granule said:
Will somebody please wake up the polygamists? They also should have equal protection under the law...
Click to expand...

The State has the right to prevent polygamy because it has an interest in protecting the rights of women and children. The current construct of marriage - in terms of the obligations and benefits - is one way the States express that interest - equal distribution of assets, assumed paternity, etc...

The courts can only validate or invalidate law, they can't legislate. As such, they can deem bans on same-sex marriage invalid as unconstitutional, they can rule that legislative changes to legal definitions of marriage that explicitly ban same-sex marriage are invalid as unconstitutional, but they can't require the State to reconstruct marriage in order to accomodate polygamy - which is what would have to happen. Besides, the State could prove that it is necessary to ban polygamy in order to maintain its interest in protecting the rights of women and children that exist in the current construct of marriage. This is why polygamy will remain illegal even if same-sex marriage is legalized.
 
dixon76710 said:
Over 50% of births are UNplanned. Unplanned births are ONLY an issue among heterosexual couples. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Gay sex has NO such tendency.
Click to expand...

Really? All children com from a heterosexual union? And sperm banks are used for what purpose? To bypass the heterosexual union? Are children adopted in this country? Yes, they come from the biological components of a man and a woman coming together... but it isn't even necessary for the man and the woman to be in the same state for this to occur.

Besides, the way constitutional law works in this country, the exclusion of a group from a fundamental right must be necessary in order to further a valid State interest. How is excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry necessary?
 
Someone in the Presidental race has three wives and its not the Mormon.....
 
Southern Chicken said:
Really? All children com from a heterosexual union?
Click to expand...

All children who come from a union of two people, come from unions of heterosexual couples. Include what laboratories can do through artificial means and surrogacy and a union between my dog an I could create a child

Southern Chicken said:
Besides, the way constitutional law works in this country, the exclusion of a group from a fundamental right must be necessary in order to further a valid State interest. How is excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry necessary?
Click to expand...

Traditional marriage isnt an exclusion of homosexuals. it is an inclusion of heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate. But that is how the courts are creating this right to gay marriage. Creating this judicial fiction that marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples in order to include those who procreate but is instead intended to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Which is absurd.
 
Southern Chicken said:
The State has the right to prevent polygamy because it has an interest in protecting the rights of women and children. The current construct of marriage - in terms of the obligations and benefits - is one way the States express that interest - equal distribution of assets, assumed paternity, etc...
.
Click to expand...

Wonder how long it will be before lesbians begin insisting that "man" and "husband" means man or woman and husband or wife. Mass has already rued that "husband" in the laws regarding artificiaL insemination, isnt any longer limited to men. Will they insist upon the same thing in the general presumption of paternity statutes that every state has

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;
(2) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born before the 301st .....
(3) he married the mother of the child before the birth…..
(4) he married the mother of the child after the birth….

by arguing that the above limitations to men is motivated by animus towards homosexuals, having no relation to the biology of procreation, and therefore unconstitutional in the case of gays or lesbians.
 
dixon76710 said:
Wonder how long it will be before lesbians begin insisting that "man" and "husband" means man or woman and husband or wife. Mass has already rued that "husband" in the laws regarding artificiaL insemination, isnt any longer limited to men. Will they insist upon the same thing in the general presumption of paternity statutes that every state has

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;
(2) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born before the 301st .....
(3) he married the mother of the child before the birth…..
(4) he married the mother of the child after the birth….

by arguing that the above limitations to men is motivated by animus towards homosexuals, having no relation to the biology of procreation, and therefore unconstitutional in the case of gays or lesbians.
Click to expand...


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
[SUB][/SUB]
Granule said:
Will somebody please wake up the polygamists? They also should have equal protection under the law...
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with polygamy or polyandry as long as it is consensual and no under aged children are involved.
 
Yurt said:
irrelevant. non married people have children, married people who have children divorce.

i'll state again my stance:

the government should get out of marriage and grant all adults engaging in legal relationships, a civil union and leave marriage up to individuals...eg...be it a church, a temple whatever
Click to expand...

Yeah, barring that you dont have a problem with special rights for just the homosexuals, because they are so special.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, just the gay and lesbian Americans

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...

And since it wasn't violating the civil rights of HETEROSEXUALS, there was no reason for them to be included in the ruling.
 
dixon76710 said:
Why yes they are. I as a heterosexual man cannot marry someone of the same sex and neither can a homosexual man. Same treatment. I as a 52 year old divorcee, too set in my ways, have no interest in marrying a woman. Gay men with their preference for sex with men, also dont want to marry a woman. You want special treatment though, for the homosexuals, because they are so special.

You make no sense.
Click to expand...

You're allowed to marry someone who you're in love with, who loves you, and wants to marry you.
Homosexuals aren't allowed the same privilige.

Why do you want to be treated special?
 
Granule said:
Will you wake up the polygamists? No one else seems to care.
Click to expand...

Pologamy is against the law. Homosexuality isn't, no matter how many knuckle draggers want to make it so.

Do yourself a favor and stand erect. It'll give you a better view of the world. :D
 
dixon76710 said:
...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT
Click to expand...

So you support the denial of marriage to those that are unable to have children or are past the child bearing age.
When are your parents going to be forced to divorce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top