Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 143

Thread: Fed Courts rules Calf. Prop 8 unconstitutional

  1. #91
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJC View Post
    Marriage and civil unions are not of equal status in law. There are hundreds of laws that directly and indirectly benefit those in a marriage but same laws don't benefit people in civil unions equally: everything from tax, property, immigration, family laws, inheritance, medical care/decisions etc.. If civil union is the same as marriage then why would there be this redundancy?--because it's not.
    I think the point is that there is a religious connotation to "marriage" and that so long as that word applies to same-*** marriage the religious folks won't go for it. Which begs the question why govt can license/regulate marriage in the first place but that's another debate altogether. I say it will end up this way because ultimately no one can make a church "marry" someone and most won't marry same-*** couples. By the same token, when a judge "marries" folks why does the church care?

    Seems to me with that kind of constituency problem at play, the best way to handle it is for all states to grant licenses to couples who want to (through whatever means they want - a judge or a church) be joined and recognized by the state as a unit. Then they can marry in their church or be joined however they want. But under the "law" the union would be the same whatever name you apply to it. If you want to call it same *** marriage so be it but to the law it will be the same and will give the participants the same access to "rights" that every man/woman union would have.

    It really has to come down like that at some point. The questions of why states are regulating a religious service and why the "rights" that go along with man/woman union recognized in a church (or not sometimes) aren't available to same *** couples can't really be answered any other way.

    hank

  2. #92
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal cl View Post
    But that's ultimately for the SCOTUS to decide. From a propaganda standpoint, not a legalistic one, what I'm saying is gay rights activists attempt to piggyback successful Civil Rights movements while glossing over non-successful ones. That's it.

    Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this.
    There are so many issues to equal rights, first of which is whether **********s are a protected class, right? If yes they get a standard the state can't meet. if not, then it is a tougher question but one that I think ultimately **********s as a class can meet.

    But I don't see the connection to civil rights. Explain that. I'm genuinely curious as to what you are saying. Equals rights has been used by women and the disabled as well as in other contexts. Its not specific to the context you mention. Its applicable in many other contexts as well. So long as the class is disadvantaged in some way, equal protection analysis (by one of the three standards currently recognized) can apply.

    hank

  3. #93
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal cl View Post
    Even the Voting Rights Act?
    Are you always this obtuse?

    Yes, "putting in a federal law that knocks out laws designed to keep blacks from voting because, despite the fact that we passed the Civil War Amendments, people still decided it'd be a good idea to deny them their right to do so a hundred years later" would fall under equal protection/rights, privileges, and immunities. It's unfortunate that it took a federal law to make that guarantee clear. See also: the 14th Amendment.

    But that's ultimately for the SCOTUS to decide. From a propaganda standpoint, not a legalistic one, what I'm saying is gay rights activists attempt to piggyback successful Civil Rights movements while glossing over non-successful ones. That's it.

    Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this.
    Somehow I don't see the parallels between the gay rights movement and the (relatively small) "let Mormons keep practicing bigamy until God decides they don't have to anymore because he wants Utah to be a state" movement. Mainly due to the entirely different circumstances, motivations, arguments for, and end games that the two movements are working under. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, however, demanded the same basic thing that the current-day gay rights movement demands: we want the same rights/abilities as everybody else. That's why the parallel is drawn. It's also valid.

    As for your "Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this" comment, what was your source? This?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920416/posts

    Corretta King went on record supporting gay rights, by the way. Something tells me that a woman as dignified as her isn't simply courting for votes/press coverage, unlike Jesse Jackson. Your statement probably should have read "Some Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this."

  4. #94
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Marriage, like most other state functions involving interaction with the citizenry -- driver's licenses, library cards, access to universities, state-run healthcare programs, etc. -- a privilege. An inherently-discriminatory policy in the application of such state functions is going to be met with scrutiny by the courts. That's how the game is played. Your own biases seem to be telling you that this case is somehow different than the dozens of other scenarios this country has dealt with. Take the word "gay" out of it and sub some other minority group in. You seriously think that'll stand up in court?
    I generally agree but remember this. How gays are "classified" is critical to the analysis. I've said (and I didn't make it up I borrowed it) that how the class is characterized makes all the difference because it determines which standard applies. If the class isn't "protected" the law will be judged on a standard that's much much easier to meet than a protected class. So far, SCOTUS has not really seemed interested in protecting gays with the highest standard. If Lawrence v. Texas (I know its not an EP case) is any indication, Kennedy would be willing to "protect" gays with the higher standard. If SCOTUS does, then all states will have to recognize some type of gay union. If not I used to say that gay union would have a tough road. But I think that's changing. This opinion moves us farther down the road of gays not being a protected class and still finding no rational basis for the law. That's unprecedented and in my view a big indicator that things may be changing. But only time will tell.

    Hard to say how it will play out but I'd say the tide has turned. Gays will get EP even if they aren't a protected class. Wasn't sure that would happen before.

    hank

  5. #95
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hank View Post
    I generally agree but remember this. How gays are "classified" is critical to the analysis. I've said (and I didn't make it up I borrowed it) that how the class is characterized makes all the difference because it determines which standard applies. If the class isn't "protected" the law will be judged on a standard that's much much easier to meet than a protected class. So far, SCOTUS has not really seemed interested in protecting gays with the highest standard. If Lawrence v. Texas (I know its not an EP case) is any indication, Kennedy would be willing to "protect" gays with the higher standard. If SCOTUS does, then all states will have to recognize some type of gay union. If not I used to say that gay union would have a tough road. But I think that's changing. This opinion moves us farther down the road of gays not being a protected class and still finding no rational basis for the law. That's unprecedented and in my view a big indicator that things may be changing. But only time will tell.

    Hard to say how it will play out but I'd say the tide has turned. Gays will get EP even if they aren't a protected class. Wasn't sure that would happen before.

    hank
    Fair points.

    Having said that, if they're not a protected class, they're well on their way. IIRC, recipients of federal funds can't discriminate on the basis of, among other things, ****** orientation. "Gay bashing" is now specifically targeted as a hate crime. Etc. etc. etc.

  6. #96
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    If they get protected class its over. I like the direction its headed though because for the first time I think they still might get the "right" even if they aren't found to be protected. SCOTUS has had no interest so far in finding them to be protected. Scalia's opinion on that issue is funny to read. He actually makes the point that gays are "advantaged" instead of "disadvantaged." Classic Scalia.

    Good points. We've come a long way even since the victory that was Lawrence v. Texas.

    You know a lot about this: lawyer/law student or just interested?

    And not to say "I told you so" but go back and read the epic battle 2 sheds and I had on this back in 2003-2004. EPIC.

    hank

  7. #97
    No Good Bloody Seppo California Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Watching
    Age
    51
    Posts
    40,721

    Default

    Hahaha I remember that one.

    Like when Geezah and Hot Lips would go at it over specific gun rights cases...

  8. #98
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by California Joe View Post
    Hahaha I remember that one.

    Like when Geezah and Hot Lips would go at it over specific gun rights cases...
    Those were equally epic.

    hank

  9. #99
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hank View Post
    If they get protected class its over. I like the direction its headed though because for the first time I think they still might get the "right" even if they aren't found to be protected. SCOTUS has had no interest so far in finding them to be protected. Scalia's opinion on that issue is funny to read. He actually makes the point that gays are "advantaged" instead of "disadvantaged." Classic Scalia.

    Good points. We've come a long way even since the victory that was Lawrence v. Texas.

    You know a lot about this: lawyer/law student or just interested?

    And not to say "I told you so" but go back and read the epic battle 2 sheds and I had on this back in 2003-2004. EPIC.

    hank
    I'm still doing my undergrad, but law school's probably in the future. Looking at doing the LSAT and GRE in the fall, just to keep my options open. Having said that, we're studying free exercise cases right now in my conlaw class; if nothing else, this is good preparation for my test next week.

  10. #100
    No Good Bloody Seppo California Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Watching
    Age
    51
    Posts
    40,721

    Default

    You have to admit, we may actually be evolving in here a little bit...at least now we're all discussing the legalities of gay rights, not whether or not kids should be able to shoot other kids in the face during computer lab cause one of them is overly feminine and made a kissy face at the other one....

  11. #101
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    There can't really be any debate about that, Joe. You touch my lipstick, I'll kill ya. . . .

    hank

  12. #102
    Milo Drinker of Death
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    14,893

    Default

    And to think that "milphotos.net hearts homos" without even having to host a single anti-harrassment *********** rights ********** awareness seminar.

    It's amazing really.....

    Because the world would have us believe that without suppressing our genetically predetermined racism and discrimination we simply can't compute live and let live.

    I'm looking forward to the day my wife and I can divorce and live in sin...then marry our great grandchildren for a brief minute before we die, leave them all our moneys, and give the tax man the f'n bird....so bring it...

    My personal feeling is that if homos want to marry each other...awesome......but you can't use the word marriage..........but partnership....life partners....or something brand new, artificial, and Kwanza-ey hell yeah...but the WORD marriage....sorry...that for heteros.

    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.

    So the rainbow tribe has my vote.....but I've got to put a rider on that bill regarding the word marriage.

  13. #103
    Senior Member Gleipnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    the calling darkness
    Posts
    6,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.
    And for those heteros who can not and/or have zero interest in reproducing? What shall we call that?

  14. #104
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gleipnir View Post
    And for those heteros who can not and/or have zero interest in reproducing? What shall we call that?
    Chief Justice John Roberts is married but has two adopted kids. What shall we call that?

  15. #105
    Waywickedcool Federal Ninja Laconian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Villa Gorilla
    Age
    52
    Posts
    14,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    And to think that "milphotos.net hearts homos" without even having to host a single anti-harrassment *********** rights ********** awareness seminar.

    It's amazing really.....

    Because the world would have us believe that without suppressing our genetically predetermined racism and discrimination we simply can't compute live and let live.

    I'm looking forward to the day my wife and I can divorce and live in sin...then marry our great grandchildren for a brief minute before we die, leave them all our moneys, and give the tax man the f'n bird....so bring it...

    My personal feeling is that if homos want to marry each other...awesome......but you can't use the word marriage..........but partnership....life partners....or something brand new, artificial, and Kwanza-ey hell yeah...but the WORD marriage....sorry...that for heteros.

    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.

    So the rainbow tribe has my vote.....but I've got to put a rider on that bill regarding the word marriage.
    I actually agree with this. I don't know if it's the case with all denominations of all religions, but if a couple were married in a civil ceremony instead of a church ceremony, the "marriage" wasn't accepted in the eyes of the church and the couple were considered living in sin. I know a lot of couples that did both.

    I think civil unions and even common law partners should enjoy all the same privileges, tax breaks, and misery that comes with marriage and divorce. But it ain't marriage.

    I also think it's ironice that probably 30-40 years ago, the gay community was making fun of marriage, calling it a dead institution, squaresville, etc. and now they want in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •