Page 28 of 49 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #271
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Committed gay couples deserve equal protection under the 14th Amendment. No rational argument denies that, and indeed the Prop 8 people have stated as much.

    What the Prop 8 people object to is the method gay couples are employing to obtain equal protection.

    Marriage is and always has been in the time-honored cultural tradition a committed union "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage, and that's a given no-brainer, not a matter for rational conjecture. Historical tiny anectdotal occurences of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.

    Those who support Prop 8 see things as they truly are and wish to continue to respect the time-honored tradition of marriage as it truly is.

    Gays, however, in their defense, have a right to equal protection under the law in union of committed couples, just as married people do.

    The problem here is that marriage would have to be redefined to include gays, and that's a ludricrous notion to Prop 8 supporters, as then "marriage" would no longer mean what it always has been to them: a time-honored cultural tradition between a man and a woman as husband and wife which thereby definitively has great meaning to them. The word "marriage" simply can't be redefined to include gays as it would then cease to be marriage by all that is important historically in making marriage meaningful throughout history.

    Equal protection is really the issue here, truly the only rational issue.

    So what is the solution to give equal protection to committed gay couples?

    Simple: expand the definition of civil union contracts to include the same legal protections as marriage contracts.

    This solves everyone's problems: 1) gay couples get equal protection, and they can create a separate unique term to describe that special civil union, 2) straight couples retain meaningful value in their time honored tradition of mariage.

    So why isn't that the direction being taken?

    Because gay people have waited long enough, their leaders say, for such action to occur, and it's not occurring. We're tired of waiting, they say, as it takes too long to do things the correct way.

    So gay leaders decided to push the issue by attempting to redefine a long-defined cultural tradition -- marriage -- to remove the foundational "man and a woman as husband and wife", which is, rationally, a ludicrous suggestion.

    But where democracy exists, anything is possible .. and gay leaders reasoned this approach was a win-win for them. Either they would incredibly succeed, thereby instantly guaranteeing and equal protection avenue for gay couples, or they would fail but so rally everyone's attention that civil unions would be modified en masse across the country to grant committed gay couples their constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection.

    However, gay leaders neglected, in their effort, to be considerate of the great majority -- married couples (straight by definition) -- they would offend. In fact, many gay leaders simply expressed that they could care less about what married couples (straight by definition) thought about the matter. Indeed, gay leaders, so filled with animosity toward those they accused of blocking gay couples' equal protection rights, may not have realized their egregious approach would most certainly be an offense to others .. resulting, understandably in the Prop 8 action.

    Those who argue in favor of gays having equal protection under the law by ludicrously redefining the traditionaly protected word "marriage" are too often unethically looking the other way at the very real damage being done to the time-honored tradition of marriage in the eyes of those who respect it for what it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    I find it rather hypocritical that those gays and liberals who rage about injustice are being insensitive to the injustice they themselves are attempting to do to an entire class of people in this matter: married couples (straight by definition).

    Married people -- straight by definition -- via the supporters of Prop 8 are simply saying that marriage belongs to us by meaningfully valued definition and that gays, though they have the right to equal protection, have no right to break in and steal from us what we so greatly value: our term "marriage" and its meaning.

    That's a most valid complaint, and if the shoe were on the other foot I'm pretty sure gay leaders would more easily incline to agree.

    This issue really isn't about whether gays have the right to equal protection, it's about the method they're employing to secure it: invasive thievery of a time-honored institution that is greatly valued as meaningful to those who have participated in it as it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Gay leaders would do well to realize that the very people they are invading and stealing from here are in favor of supporting their (gay) equal protection rights for committed couples. It just seems really stupid, therefore, for gay leaders to antagonize a great majority like this that supports their goal, as that can't serve them well in the long-run.

    It is imporant for gay leaders to understand that gays comprise only about eight to nine percent of the population, and although their very small numbers in no way means their committed couples are not entitled to equal protection under the law, their present approach of invading and stealing a time-honored tradition from those who value its meaning is without a question an act of tyranny of the minority.

    Gays may lament that their sexual orientation that exists through no choice of their own rightly prevents them from "marrying" .. and yeah, it is kind of sad, like it's sad that a man with no legs really wants to play pro football .. but can't, obviously. But in no way does such frustration justify the invasive thievery gay leaders are advocating to secure equal protection. Those of us who live with challenges must play the hand that was dealt us, and without selfishly making others miserable because we feel "cheated" by God or fate or whatever.

    Liberals, I would argue, not surprisingly support gay leaders in their invasive thievery method of securing equal protection, which they do because their pre-conceived ideology demands that they follow liberal party philosophy even if it means commiting an egregious act against another segment of the population.

    Liberals would do well to realize that ignoring the meaningful tradition of others that in no way, by time-honored definition, offends gays or prevents them from securing their equal protection rights through honorable means, only leads to an attitude of war and increased animosity between straights and gays. Liberals would do well, if they really are the "peace lovers" they say they are, not to embrace quick-fix shortcuts that come at the angering expense of an innocent group of people: those who value marriage (straight by definition).

    And for liberals to "claim" to not see this real issue as I've presented, or pooh-pooh it as being "less imporant" than securing equal protection for committed gay couples by egregious quick-fix means, are, well, likely not very bright .. or honorable .. and reflects ignorance and insensitivity on the part of liberals.

    This invasive thievery method of securing equal protection for gay couples is not progress.

    Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.

    A word to the wise.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #272
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.

    A word to the wise.
    An eloquent post but you forgot something. 19 states have constitutional bans not just on same sex marriage, but on civil unions and domestic partnerships. The reality is that the same sex marriage opponents drew blood first. They have denied same sex couples anything even comparable to marriage across this country. They pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act which established a federal definition of marriage.

    And you want to rant and rave about compromise? You want to accuse liberals and gay rights advocates on trampling on a definition when the other side has gone so far as to deny even civil unions to same sex couples? What the hell world are you living in when a traditional definition of a word has more value than basic equal rights?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  3. #273
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    This Prop 8 ruling has odd timing, since I wrote this thread last night:

    Between Darkness and Light

  4. #274
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    A few points for you, Angel.

    First, the claim of "one man and one woman" as a historical context for marriage is simply not accurate. This comes up in just about every thread on SSM. One man and many women is likely the most common historical form of marriage. So, the appeal to history does not hold water.

    Second, the supposed "right" of heterosexuals to define marriage how they choose is necessarily unequal protection, since homosexuals are denied that same right. Not that such a right actually exists in the first place, but even if it did, it would not be equal application of the law.

    Third, the compromise of civil unions. American law long since holds that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Equal access to marriage for any couple, regardless of gender, is the only way to actually apply the law equally to everyone.

    And that's all there is to it, luv.
    spike.jpg
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #275
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    This Prop 8 ruling has odd timing, since I wrote this thread last night:

    Between Darkness and Light
    Well that is anticlimactic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #276
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    If we allow Prop 8 to overturn, it's only going to lead to other Props getting overturned.
    You forget this is no way a done deal. All 11 judges of the 9th circuit will have to rule on it plus the SCOTUS.
    Last edited by Navy Pride; 02-08-12 at 04:55 PM.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #277
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You forget this is no way a done deal. All 11 judges of the 9th circuit will have to rule on it plus the SCOTUS>
    I would love for it to go to the 11 judges on the 9th before it goes to SCOTUS. The case could only get stronger.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #278
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I would love for it to go to the 11 judges on the 9th before it goes to SCOTUS. The case could only get stronger.
    Your probably right. that whole court is made up mostly of activist judges that is why their decisions are overturned so often. I hope it goes straight to the SCOTUS.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #279
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I just finished reading Smith's dissenting opinion. This section pretty much sums it up..."
    I'll have to read how the court came to the decision.

    If they came to the decision based on Gender inequality, then what this Judges dissenting opinion states IS incredibly weak because it justifes it at a lower level than gender discrimination requires.

    If they came to the decision based on Sexual Preference discrimination, then this Judges dissenting opinion is relatively worth while and it'll come down as to whether or not the SCOTUS believes that sexual orientation needs to be raised to a higher level under the EPC.

  10. #280
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Committed gay couples deserve equal protection under the 14th Amendment. No rational argument denies that, and indeed the Prop 8 people have stated as much.

    What the Prop 8 people object to is the method gay couples are employing to obtain equal protection.

    Marriage is and always has been in the time-honored cultural tradition a committed union "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage, and that's a given no-brainer, not a matter for rational conjecture. Historical tiny anectdotal occurences of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.

    Those who support Prop 8 see things as they truly are and wish to continue to respect the time-honored tradition of marriage as it truly is.

    Gays, however, in their defense, have a right to equal protection under the law in union of committed couples, just as married people do.

    The problem here is that marriage would have to be redefined to include gays, and that's a ludricrous notion to Prop 8 supporters, as then "marriage" would no longer mean what it always has been to them: a time-honored cultural tradition between a man and a woman as husband and wife which thereby definitively has great meaning to them. The word "marriage" simply can't be redefined to include gays as it would then cease to be marriage by all that is important historically in making marriage meaningful throughout history.

    Equal protection is really the issue here, truly the only rational issue.

    So what is the solution to give equal protection to committed gay couples?

    Simple: expand the definition of civil union contracts to include the same legal protections as marriage contracts.

    This solves everyone's problems: 1) gay couples get equal protection, and they can create a separate unique term to describe that special civil union, 2) straight couples retain meaningful value in their time honored tradition of mariage.

    So why isn't that the direction being taken?

    Because gay people have waited long enough, their leaders say, for such action to occur, and it's not occurring. We're tired of waiting, they say, as it takes too long to do things the correct way.

    So gay leaders decided to push the issue by attempting to redefine a long-defined cultural tradition -- marriage -- to remove the foundational "man and a woman as husband and wife", which is, rationally, a ludicrous suggestion.

    But where democracy exists, anything is possible .. and gay leaders reasoned this approach was a win-win for them. Either they would incredibly succeed, thereby instantly guaranteeing and equal protection avenue for gay couples, or they would fail but so rally everyone's attention that civil unions would be modified en masse across the country to grant committed gay couples their constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection.

    However, gay leaders neglected, in their effort, to be considerate of the great majority -- married couples (straight by definition) -- they would offend. In fact, many gay leaders simply expressed that they could care less about what married couples (straight by definition) thought about the matter. Indeed, gay leaders, so filled with animosity toward those they accused of blocking gay couples' equal protection rights, may not have realized their egregious approach would most certainly be an offense to others .. resulting, understandably in the Prop 8 action.

    Those who argue in favor of gays having equal protection under the law by ludicrously redefining the traditionaly protected word "marriage" are too often unethically looking the other way at the very real damage being done to the time-honored tradition of marriage in the eyes of those who respect it for what it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    I find it rather hypocritical that those gays and liberals who rage about injustice are being insensitive to the injustice they themselves are attempting to do to an entire class of people in this matter: married couples (straight by definition).

    Married people -- straight by definition -- via the supporters of Prop 8 are simply saying that marriage belongs to us by meaningfully valued definition and that gays, though they have the right to equal protection, have no right to break in and steal from us what we so greatly value: our term "marriage" and its meaning.

    That's a most valid complaint, and if the shoe were on the other foot I'm pretty sure gay leaders would more easily incline to agree.

    This issue really isn't about whether gays have the right to equal protection, it's about the method they're employing to secure it: invasive thievery of a time-honored institution that is greatly valued as meaningful to those who have participated in it as it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Gay leaders would do well to realize that the very people they are invading and stealing from here are in favor of supporting their (gay) equal protection rights for committed couples. It just seems really stupid, therefore, for gay leaders to antagonize a great majority like this that supports their goal, as that can't serve them well in the long-run.

    It is imporant for gay leaders to understand that gays comprise only about eight to nine percent of the population, and although their very small numbers in no way means their committed couples are not entitled to equal protection under the law, their present approach of invading and stealing a time-honored tradition from those who value its meaning is without a question an act of tyranny of the minority.

    Gays may lament that their sexual orientation that exists through no choice of their own rightly prevents them from "marrying" .. and yeah, it is kind of sad, like it's sad that a man with no legs really wants to play pro football .. but can't, obviously. But in no way does such frustration justify the invasive thievery gay leaders are advocating to secure equal protection. Those of us who live with challenges must play the hand that was dealt us, and without selfishly making others miserable because we feel "cheated" by God or fate or whatever.

    Liberals, I would argue, not surprisingly support gay leaders in their invasive thievery method of securing equal protection, which they do because their pre-conceived ideology demands that they follow liberal party philosophy even if it means commiting an egregious act against another segment of the population.

    Liberals would do well to realize that ignoring the meaningful tradition of others that in no way, by time-honored definition, offends gays or prevents them from securing their equal protection rights through honorable means, only leads to an attitude of war and increased animosity between straights and gays. Liberals would do well, if they really are the "peace lovers" they say they are, not to embrace quick-fix shortcuts that come at the angering expense of an innocent group of people: those who value marriage (straight by definition).

    And for liberals to "claim" to not see this real issue as I've presented, or pooh-pooh it as being "less imporant" than securing equal protection for committed gay couples by egregious quick-fix means, are, well, likely not very bright .. or honorable .. and reflects ignorance and insensitivity on the part of liberals.

    This invasive thievery method of securing equal protection for gay couples is not progress.

    Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.

    A word to the wise.
    The 14th amendment says nothing about marriage be it straight or gay....when the originators signed it marriage was not eveen considered. They would roll over in their graves if they knew that a few activist gays and a whole bunch of Liberals were using it for this reason.
    Last edited by Navy Pride; 02-08-12 at 05:02 PM.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

Page 28 of 49 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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