After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

There should be a huge burden on those who want to ban something. The proof that the act sought to be banned is unquestionably deleterious to society should be almost as great as proof of guilt in a criminal case. That being said, there is no real valid argument to ban gay marriage or not to treat two gay partners the same as a childless married couple. However, conversely, a valid argument can be made that claims of equal protection are not really implicated because OBJECTIVELY everyone is treated the same-males can marry females. It is the subjective difference (state of attraction) that is different

nonetheless there is no reason to ban gay marriage whether or not constitutional implications are invoked

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

Proof! You are an abomination!

Click to expand...

perhaps but being better armed than most toothbrush purists I will flaunt my deviancy in their faces!!

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TurtleDude said:

perhaps but being better armed than most toothbrush purists I will flaunt my deviancy in their faces!!

Click to expand...

Well played sir.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

Well played sir.

Click to expand...

They do bristle with indignation though!!

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TurtleDude said:

There should be a huge burden on those who want to ban something. The proof that the act sought to be banned is unquestionably deleterious to society should be almost as great as proof of guilt in a criminal case. That being said, there is no real valid argument to ban gay marriage or not to treat two gay partners the same as a childless married couple. However, conversely, a valid argument can be made that claims of equal protection are not really implicated because OBJECTIVELY everyone is treated the same-males can marry females. It is the subjective difference (state of attraction) that is different

nonetheless there is no reason to ban gay marriage whether or not constitutional implications are invoked

Click to expand...

Oh thank God a conservative who is actually consistent with his views. *hugs TurtleDude* I was starting to think you people were a myth!

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Deuce said:

Oh thank God a conservative who is actually consistent with his views. *hugs TurtleDude* I was starting to think you people were a myth!

Click to expand...

straight but not narrow. I just cannot see how my marriage to my wife is in any way negatively affected by two gays being married. One of the most prominent arguments raised against gays (especially during the AIDS crisis) was the promiscuity of gay men seen as a major cause of the mutation that lead to the HIV or Aids. Yet, now people whine about a vehicle that may promote monagamous relationships between gays. Go figure

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

Ever hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority"?

The idea that every judicial decision that we disagree with is "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench" is just silly.

Click to expand...

This could be tyranny of the majority by the minority through the courts. If there really was a legal issue then why did they vote on it in the first place? Why didn't the whistle blowers see their arguments in prop 8 before it was voted on? Honestly I believe they hoped to pass gay marriage in a fairly socially liberal state like California. When that failed they went to plan B which is taking it to court. I agree that not every judicial decision is activist judging or legislating from the bench, but this (and the Arizona Law's possible law suit) are both prime examples of that. The lawsuit has an agenda behind it, and because plan A failed they must go to plan B. It doesn't matter what the voters think, it only matters what those with a socially liberal agenda want.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TurtleDude said:

straight but not narrow. I just cannot see how my marriage to my wife is in any way negatively affected by two gays being married. One of the most prominent arguments raised against gays (especially during the AIDS crisis) was the promiscuity of gay men seen as a major cause of the mutation that lead to the HIV or Aids. Yet, now people whine about a vehicle that may promote monagamous relationships between gays. Go figure

Click to expand...

Counterpoint:
YouTube - Proposition 8 Commercial
Marriage without babies? The children couldn't possibly understand! They're too stupid and always will be!

The Yes-on-8 ads make my ****ing stomach turn.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

This could be tyranny of the majority by the minority through the courts. If there really was a legal issue then why did they vote on it in the first place? Why didn't the whistle blowers see their arguments in prop 8 before it was voted on? Honestly I believe they hoped to pass gay marriage in a fairly socially liberal state like California. When that failed they went to plan B which is taking it to court. I agree that not every judicial decision is activist judging or legislating from the bench, but this (and the Arizona Law's possible law suit) are both prime examples of that. The lawsuit has an agenda behind it, and because plan A failed they must go to plan B. It doesn't matter what the voters think, it only matters what those with a socially liberal agenda want.

Click to expand...

You are spinning conspiracy theories now. It is nothing new or improper to have new laws tested in the courts.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

You are spinning conspiracy theories now. It is nothing new or improper to have new laws tested in the courts.

Click to expand...

It isn't anything new, but it isn't right. In my opinion it's just a plan B. Either the voters can approve of gay marriage, or they can have it shoved down their throats against their will. I also think it's hypocritical for them to take this to court in the first place.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Deuce said:

Counterpoint:
YouTube - Proposition 8 Commercial
Marriage without babies? The children couldn't possibly understand! They're too stupid and always will be!

The Yes-on-8 ads make my ****ing stomach turn.

Click to expand...

Has anyone ever asked them whether or not a hetero-sexual couple that is unable to have babies should be allowed to marry? I'd like to see them try to wiggle out of that one.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It isn't anything new, but it isn't right. In my opinion it's just a plan B. Either the voters can approve of gay marriage, or they can have it shoved down their throats against their will. I also think it's hypocritical for them to take this to court in the first place.

Click to expand...

It is a plan B. If it was not necessary to take to court, why would you. It proved necessary. If the courts decide prop 8 is unlawful, that is no more "shoving it down your throats" than any other such court ruling.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It isn't anything new, but it isn't right. In my opinion it's just a plan B. Either the voters can approve of gay marriage, or they can have it shoved down their throats against their will. I also think it's hypocritical for them to take this to court in the first place.

Click to expand...

So you hold the opinion that civil liberties of a minority group should be decided by majority vote. Got it.

The people voted to take away rights. **** what they think.

edit: And I love the freudian implications of people always using the phrase "shoved down our throats" when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It isn't anything new, but it isn't right. In my opinion it's just a plan B. Either the voters can approve of gay marriage, or they can have it shoved down their throats against their will. I also think it's hypocritical for them to take this to court in the first place.

Click to expand...

why should gays have heterosexual marriage shoved down their throats?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

It is a plan B. If it was not necessary to take to court, why would you. It proved necessary. If the courts decide prop 8 is unlawful, that is no more "shoving it down your throats" than any other such court ruling.

Click to expand...

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

Deuce said:

So you hold the opinion that civil liberties of a minority group should be decided by majority vote. Got it.

The people voted to take away rights. **** what they think.

edit: And I love the freudian implications of people always using the phrase "shoved down our throats" when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

homosexuals are not a minority group. They are as much a minority group as guys who have different fetishes. Homosexuality is a sexual preference/orientation. It's not a religion or race. Sexual practices do not constitute a minority group.

The people voted to define marriage in their state. The ballot did not say "no gays are allowed to marry." There was no taking away privileges, but rather a declaration of what marriage is. It was a positive action (defining marriage) not a negative action (removing a gay's right to marry). If prop 8 said "homosexual marriages cannot happen" then you would be right in saying people voted to take away what you consider to be "rights" away from homosexuals.

Honestly I find this all entirely hypocritical. One of the major arguments or the pro-gay marriage crowd is that "no one has the right to impose their morals on another." Basically meaning Christians and social conservatives have no right to say gays can't marry because it isn't their life to run. However, It's completely ok to do the same thing only in reverse. It's ok to go to the majority and the voters and impose socially liberal morality upon people who as a state, rejected it. They are imposing socially liberal morals on a state and essentially doing the thing that they claim to hate and use in their arguments.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

Click to expand...

I dunno, has your state's been tested in court? The truth is, you cannot vote to make an illegal law. That is why we have a legal system such as we do.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

I dunno, has your state's been tested in court? The truth is, you cannot vote to make an illegal law. That is why we have a legal system such as we do.

Click to expand...

Yes, the amendment was brought before the TN supreme court by the ACLU, and they lost the lawsuit. This was also done before they amendment appeared on our ballots. Before people voted in California they should have looked at the amendment and declared if it is legal or not in the first place. My state's amendment is "harsher" than Prop 8 in that it annuls any marriage license from another state that does not conform to the standards of one man and one woman. There is nothing illegal about a state defining marriage, many have done so and none of them have been struck down in court.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

homosexuals are not a minority group. They are as much a minority group as guys who have different fetishes. Homosexuality is a sexual preference/orientation. It's not a religion or race. Sexual practices do not constitute a minority group.

The people voted to define marriage in their state. The ballot did not say "no gays are allowed to marry." There was no taking away privileges, but rather a declaration of what marriage is. It was a positive action (defining marriage) not a negative action (removing a gay's right to marry). If prop 8 said "homosexual marriages cannot happen" then you would be right in saying people voted to take away what you consider to be "rights" away from homosexuals.

Honestly I find this all entirely hypocritical. One of the major arguments or the pro-gay marriage crowd is that "no one has the right to impose their morals on another." Basically meaning Christians and social conservatives have no right to say gays can't marry because it isn't their life to run. However, It's completely ok to do the same thing only in reverse. It's ok to go to the majority and the voters and impose socially liberal morality upon people who as a state, rejected it. They are imposing socially liberal morals on a state and essentially doing the thing that they claim to hate and use in their arguments.

Click to expand...

This veiwpoint just makes me think humanity is pitiful. With state recognition no morals are being are forced upon any one. One can still have their heterosexual marriage and continue to think homosexuality is abhorrent. With out state recognition of gay marriage morals are being forced on somone, gay people.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

winston53660 said:

This veiwpoint just makes me think humanity is pitiful. With state recognition no morals are being are forced upon any one. One can still have their heterosexual marriage and continue to think homosexuality is abhorrent. With out state recognition of gay marriage morals are being forced on somone, gay people.

Click to expand...

Please don't flame bait. The fact is that people chose to define marriage at a legal level. A state has the right to do so, even to define marriage as a union between two consenting adults of any gender.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

homosexuals are not a minority group. They are as much a minority group as guys who have different fetishes. Homosexuality is a sexual preference/orientation. It's not a religion or race. Sexual practices do not constitute a minority group.

The people voted to define marriage in their state. The ballot did not say "no gays are allowed to marry." There was no taking away privileges, but rather a declaration of what marriage is. It was a positive action (defining marriage) not a negative action (removing a gay's right to marry). If prop 8 said "homosexual marriages cannot happen" then you would be right in saying people voted to take away what you consider to be "rights" away from homosexuals.

Honestly I find this all entirely hypocritical. One of the major arguments or the pro-gay marriage crowd is that "no one has the right to impose their morals on another." Basically meaning Christians and social conservatives have no right to say gays can't marry because it isn't their life to run. However, It's completely ok to do the same thing only in reverse. It's ok to go to the majority and the voters and impose socially liberal morality upon people who as a state, rejected it. They are imposing socially liberal morals on a state and essentially doing the thing that they claim to hate and use in their arguments.

Click to expand...

You are literally arguing semantics with this "positive declaration" thing. It may not have said "no gays can marry" but that's exactly what the effect was and that's exactly what the intent was. Also, no, the "morals" of "liberals" aren't being imposed upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, go to a gay wedding, or perform a ceremony for two dudes in your church. Nothing forces you to participate in their marriage in any way. It never ceases to amaze me how often Christians like to play the victim card. "Oh boo hoo, I won't have legal backing for my personal moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle. My freedoms!"

Finally, the inability of conservatives, and even most liberals, to understand that gay marriage is about love and commitment, not gay sex, is irritating to a tremendous degree. Guess what, gay people already have sex. This isn't about having sex. It's about being able to legally bind yourself with someone you love, and to have that commitment be treated like anyone else's.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

The fact is that people chose to define marriage at a legal level. A state has the right to do so, even to define marriage as a union between two consenting adults of any gender.

Click to expand...

For the time being that is true it does not make it Constitutional or equal. And it does make me think humanity is pitiful when individual rights are un equal.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

If anyone cares to read about fall of any Nation/Empire/Civilization, the main point that causes such to collapse is a sharp reduction in the moral standards of that Society, as it has been in the past, so it will be in the present and very likely the future.
A strong Society requires a strong Moral code.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Deuce said:

You are literally arguing semantics with this "positive declaration" thing. It may not have said "no gays can marry" but that's exactly what the effect was and that's exactly what the intent was. Also, no, the "morals" of "liberals" aren't being imposed upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, go to a gay wedding, or perform a ceremony for two dudes in your church. Nothing forces you to participate in their marriage in any way. It never ceases to amaze me how often Christians like to play the victim card. "Oh boo hoo, I won't have legal backing for my personal moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle. My freedoms!"

Finally, the inability of conservatives, and even most liberals, to understand that gay marriage is about love and commitment, not gay sex, is irritating to a tremendous degree. Guess what, gay people already have sex. This isn't about having sex. It's about being able to legally bind yourself with someone you love, and to have that commitment be treated like anyone else's.

Click to expand...

In a legal battle the things that matter are the law and what Proposition 8 actually says. And you are wrong, overturning it would be to impose liberal morals upon people. Essentially this is what is happening. The state voted on an amendment to define marriage. The majority vote said that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This definition of marriage is a moral stance/belief. It is absolutely imposing liberal morals upon people to say "your moral opinion is wrong, it is illegal and we are going to overturn what the democratic process has done." They are imposing their morals by asserting their moral opinion that marriage is not a union between one man and one woman.

What most socially conservative people believe is that homosexuality and a homosexual marriage is unequal to a heterosexual marriage. Those who are religious (like myself) believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior just like incest and bestiality. You say it's about legally binding yourself to one you love, so why can't a man legally bind himself to the one he loves if it happens to be a horse, a dog, or his sister?

winston53660 said:

For the time being that is true it does not make it Constitutional or equal. And it does make me think humanity is pitiful when individual rights are un equal.

Click to expand...

That is just your opinion. Is humanity pitiful when the individual right of someone to marry an animal is not equal to a male to female marriage? Anything can be called an "individual right." Society and law dictate what is an individual right and what is not an individual right. In this case California voted that the individual right of marriage is between one man and one woman.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

In a legal battle the things that matter are the law and what Proposition 8 actually says. And you are wrong, overturning it would be to impose liberal morals upon people. Essentially this is what is happening. The state voted on an amendment to define marriage.

Click to expand...

Imposing their morals on gay citizens that want want to get married.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

winston53660 said:

Imposing their morals on gay citizens that want want to get married.

Click to expand...

And gay citizens want to impose their morals that their is nothing wrong with their behavior and that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. They want to impose that the state that both they and the heterosexuals live in must grant them equal marital status to a heterosexual married couple.