Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Yurt said:
if you read it, then you're a moron for saying you corrected my claim:


it is right on page 5. thus, your correction is entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, The judges who decided the In Re marriage case are NOT "California". Just a group of activist judges who thought gays had a right to "respect" from society and some "dignity" for themselves. "California" responded with Proposition 8.
 
Granule said:
Two people who share a mutual sexual attraction.

Not at this juncture, no. But thanks for throwing part of the problem in the ring, however untimealy it may be.

Of which I already understand, and yet you people can't seem to shut up about it.

Marriage, as I see it, is between one man and one woman, not 22 2 homosexuals, or 3 or 4 polygamists.

Yes. You're just missing one more point: Any man or woman who wants to marry another of the same sex is perverted.
Click to expand...


Oh, excuse me. I was confused. You're a homophobe and a bigot. Why didn't you just say so? Perverted for you...natural for me. That's what you can't fathom. And I wasn't put here to please your bigoted ass. Take your opinion and stick it somewhere.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, The judges who decided the In Re marriage case are NOT "California". Just a group of activist judges who thought gays had a right to "respect" from society and some "dignity" for themselves. "California" responded with Proposition 8.
Click to expand...

what? where did i say the judges are "california"? i said the issue the judges ruled on centered on the face california already granted gays the right to marry.
 
Dixie said:
My grasp on history is fine, you just have a mild comprehension problem. Yes, the SCOTUS, who often ultimately does rule on constitutionality of an issue, did indeed strike down the bans in loving... if it hadn't been for CRA64, there would have been no loving because there would be no legal basis. This is why such bans existed in the first place. AFTER passage of CRA, an avalanche of rulings followed, because the court was properly determining cases based on the law and the constitution.

You see, the problem we have here is, you want the courts to enforce your interpretation of the constitution and forget the law, and that's not the purpose or function of the courts, or at least, it shouldn't be.



Not contradictory at all. The court has no basis on which to claim the CA law unconstitutional because it is not unconstitutional. If California had passed a law or the US amended the Constitution, to give homosexuals special rights to pervert the sanctity of marriage, then the CA court would be within it's authority to rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, but such an act has not been passed. We have instead, the Mythical Magical Imaginary but Just Like Civil Rights Act for Gay People of 2012... It never passed Congress, it was never vote on by the people or their representatives, it just exists because liberal homos like yourself, NEED for it to, so you can make your idiotic arguments!



Guess what? NO ONE CAN!

your argument is the same that racists made regarding interracial marriage bans.

No, it's completely different, and it continues to disgust me that low lifes like you, want to make the two synonymous, when they aren't. In fact, it kind of angers me, because black people suffered a long time before the injustices against them were lifted, and for you to use that like a condom to make some point about gays not being allowed to legitimize their sexual perversion and shit on religious customs? Fuck you, idiot... you don't deserve a response.



Yes, the will of the people wanted those bans, and they were in place until the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of race... when you get your act passed which prohibits discrimination on basis of sexual desire, let me know.

When you get tired of erecting straw men, toss a match on a few for me?
Click to expand...

your grasp of history is wrong, dead wrong. cite for me where the court relies on CRA 64.....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

the bans were STILL in place after 64. get your history right before you call anyone an idiot.

if you read the arguments against lifting interracial marriage bans, you would see your arguments are identical. further, you prove yourself against the constitution as you want to ban gay marriage because of "religious" customs. there are very, very few religious customs and they are very minor, that pass the 1st amendment, such as swearing in on the bible or congressional prayer. marriage is a fundamental right, something entirely different.
 
dixon76710 said:
Children who are born to their married parents thrive, compared to children born to single mothers who have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the #s of children born to single mothers and increases the # of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

Encouraging gay couples does not.
Click to expand...

The ban on same-sex marriage does nothing to encourage people to raise children in this optimal environment. Unless, you argument is that if same-sex marriage is allowed people will, as a result, be discouraged from raising children in this environment. Is that your argument? Will those who would otherwise raise children in an opposite-sex household suddenly decide to abandon their children or choose not to have children or choose not to marry? The idea is preposterous.

What carrot is dangled as an incentive? How does it encourage people to raise children in this, not always, optimal environment you describe?

Can you show me any law or court opinion in California to support the notion that the State views same-sex relationships as less than optimal for raising children? There isn't one. Nor does the ban remedy the problem of raising children in a less than optimal environment.

You would think the state, for example, would want to treat same-sex relationships as less than optimal when it comes to adoption, but this isn't the case... it's in fact illegal to take sexual orientation into consideration. In terms of raising children, same-sex relationships are viewed by the state as equal to opposite-sex relationships. So, there's another valid reason for unequal treatment out the window. Got another one?
 
Yurt said:
what? where did i say the judges are "california"? i said the issue the judges ruled on centered on the face california already granted gays the right to marry.
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
doesn't matter if CA support DOMA (they clearly don't as they have already granted gays the right to marry).
Click to expand...

"CA", "they" did not grant gays the right to marry. Judges in California did that. "CA", "they" enacted proposition 8.
 
dixon76710 said:
Children who are born to their married parents thrive, compared to children born to single mothers who have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the #s of children born to single mothers and increases the # of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

Encouraging gay couples does not.
Click to expand...

your opinion is not fact. further, your argument is flawed as is it is based on the parents being married. if gays could marry, their children wouldn't be in a single home. comparing homosexual marriage to a single mother is a false analogy.

simply put, you have nothing to support your bigotted assertion.
 
Yurt said:
your opinion is not fact. further, your argument is flawed as is it is based on the parents being married. if gays could marry, their children wouldn't be in a single home. comparing homosexual marriage to a single mother is a false analogy.

simply put, you have nothing to support your bigotted assertion.
Click to expand...

The gays dont procreate, silly. No children to be concerned about their well being.
 
dixon76710 said:
Never claimed it did and have repeatedly said it is the INCLUSION of heterosexuals that is for the benefit of the children. Not the exclusion of gays.
Click to expand...

The law must be related to a valid State purpose and, because it impacts the choices of a suspect class, it must be necessary in order to further that purpose. According to constitutional law, that's the way it works.
What is the courts duty regarding the Equal Protection Clause? It is supposed to protect a suspect class - which is usually an unpopular minority - from the will of the simple majority. To allow the simple majority to overturn that decision by - well, a simple majority - means that there is no point to having a court make such a decision. Why have a Court protect an unpopular minority from the will of the majority when all the majority needs to do again is simply vote again to overrule it? It leaves the rights protected under the Equal Protection Clause at the whim of the simple majority. That is a substantial change.

There is still a check, it is the revision process, which still involves the citizens... but it should be more difficult to overturn a decision that is intended to protect a suspect class from the majority that would discriminate against it. To toss the decision back to the simple majority that created the restriction in the first place makes the renders the court's function meaningless.
 
Southern Chicken said:
The law must be related to a valid State purpose and, because it impacts the choices of a suspect class, it must be necessary in order to further that purpose. According to constitutional law, that's the way it works.
Click to expand...

Nope. The distinction must be rationally related to serving a legitimate purpose. Absurd, this reasoning that gays are entitled to the strictest scrutiny, a higher level of scrutiny than even discrimination based upon gender.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope. The distinction must be rationally related to serving a legitimate purpose. Absurd, this reasoning that gays are entitled to the strictest scrutiny, a higher level of scrutiny than even discrimination based upon gender.
Click to expand...

Right... we don't mean to unnecessarily bar you from marrying the person of your choosing... we're just... we're just... barring you from marrying the person of your choosing... Why? Because we always have. Idiocy. The fact that civil marriage was sanctioned a long time ago to fulfill a particular purpose does not mean that it is currently necessary to restrict based on a purpose that is no longer essential to the institution. Laws must serve a purpose - they must continue to serve a purpose... a purpose which is merely to uphold an unnecessary restriction based upon some element of marriage to which heterosexuals themselves are no longer bound is arbitrary and ridiculous. The argument itself is filled with animus towards homosexuals whether or not you wish to consciously accept that or not
 
Yurt said:
neither do many heterosexuals. argument fail.
Click to expand...

You dont have a clue

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...

That second one is US S Ct precedent. Heres what the Obama administration had to say about Baker v Nelson, before they decided they needed to pander for the gay vote.

Finally, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this Court. While the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry is "fundamental," Zablocki v.
Redhail, ....,
that right has not been held to encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex. To the contrary, in Baker v. Nelson, the
Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a "substantial federal question."....
The decision in Baker has precedential effect and is binding here.
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/smelt-doj-mot-dismiss.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Southern Chicken said:
Right... we don't mean to unnecessarily bar you from marrying the person of your choosing... we're just... we're just... barring you from marrying the person of your choosing... Why? Because we always have. Idiocy. The fact that civil marriage was sanctioned a long time ago to fulfill a particular purpose does not mean that it is currently necessary to restrict based on a purpose that is no longer essential to the institution. Laws must serve a purpose - they must continue to serve a purpose... a purpose which is merely to uphold an unnecessary restriction based upon some element of marriage to which heterosexuals themselves are no longer bound is arbitrary and ridiculous. The argument itself is filled with animus towards homosexuals whether or not you wish to consciously accept that or not
Click to expand...

Sooooo what is this new purpose and what possible relation do you see between being gay, and serving that purpose? If it is as stated in the court decisions, to form "stable households", any two consenting adults can form a household. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top