Page 91 of 189 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #901
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    so there is no difference, if I am understanding you right, here than, emotional? Do you think the 7 million folks who had their will overturned will not magically accept these "marriages" as anything more than what they were before the ruling, by 1 man?

    Are you suggesting the government can mandate acceptance, mandate diginty, respect, etc?
    Incorrect. The state of California was offering a culturally inferior institution to same sex couples. The state has no interest in excluding one goup from a fundamental right without rational basis. Furthermore, if there is no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, then why are you bothered by the state dissolving domestic partnerships? Why do same sex couples needs to be excluded from marriage if there is no difference?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-05-10 at 03:59 PM.

  2. #902
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,322

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Incorrect. The state of California was offering a culturally inferior institution to same sex couples. The state has no interest in excluding one goup from a fundamental right without rational basis. Furthermore, if there is no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, then why are you bothered by the state dissolving domestic partnerships? Why do same sex couples needs to be excluded from marriage if there is no difference?


    you were arguing over a label, other posters such as Jallman have explained to me that there are functional differences between the two.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #903
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Here's an article that overviews the topic.
    The right to marry and the Constitution

    Here are the essential rulings that establish marriage as an essential right:

    The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

    In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

    In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
    Three instances. I personally do not dispute that marriage is a right. Is it fundamental? I don't think so legally speaking. In order for a right to be fundamental, inalienable, it must belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction. link

    One might argue that any consenting adults can marry anyone of their choosing, and as such any type of marriage arrangement is fundamental, yet, all throughout historical record, we see only one type of marriage, which raises the question, is marriage that, by presumption alone, inalienable; why then have we ever only seen one type of marriage? between a man, and a woman? Notwithstanding the odd exception, this has been the rule, so, if it is reasonably presumed to be a fundamental right of all humans, why has no one else exercised this right? If the answer is glaring you in the face as it is me, then one must conclude logically, and with this test, that, marriage is not fundamental to human kind, and only fundamental, if any reading is to be extracted, to one man, and one woman.

    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 08-05-10 at 04:06 PM. Reason: typo
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  4. #904
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    If the fedgov does not recognize gay marriage, what does the state who calls it such matter?
    It's a step, since the ruling said it violated the federal constitution.

  5. #905
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    No. Prop 8 halted the right of gays to marry. It was passed in response to local ordinances in places like San Fran.
    No it happened because of state supreme court ruling


    Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    For several weeks in 2004, the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses regardless of gender. The consolidated lawsuits which resulted eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On May 15, 2008, it overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage with the ruling In re Marriage Cases.[8] The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008.[9] Two weeks earlier, the initiative to override this result of the court decision qualified for the November election ballot. The Court declined to stay its decision until after the November elections.[10] Some reports suggested that out-of-state same-sex couples would marry in California prior to the 2008 elections because California does not require the marriage to be valid in the couple's home state.

    The ballot initiative, Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act,[11] appeared on the California general election ballot in November 2008 and passed with a 52% majority.[12][13] The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 in March 2009,[14] but ultimately upheld the amendment.

    California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states.[15] This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage[16] but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states."[17] UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected in June 2008 that about half of California’s more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.[18]
    [edit]

  6. #906
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Only marriage offers FEDERAL benefits and protections.
    Don't forget the Democrats may bring back the marriage penalty on federal income tax

  7. #907
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    There's a difference of about 120 specific rights and privileges between marriage and domestic partnerships, which is all california offers.
    That could be changed

  8. #908
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Don't forget the Democrats may bring back the marriage penalty on federal income tax
    taxes are an entirely separate issue

  9. #909
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The right to refer to ones coupling as marriage in a legal sense.

    Much the same as other issues in the past where they've tried to proclaim something is "seperate" but "equal".

    Having two seperate things called two seperate things that are similar in all other ways does not make them equal, it makes them similar.

    This is akin to saying "What right does a plack person miss out if he's forced to sit in a specific section of a resturant. Can he still go to the resturant? Can he still eat the food? Can he sill get a table? If its equal amount of distance from the door as a table on the "white" side does he still not have the same ease of access? So what's the "difference" there other than an emotional claim to wanting to be able to sit in the same places the whites can sit at?
    Gays do realize when you marry you lose freedom not gain it

  10. #910
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Three instances. I personally do not dispute that marriage is a right. Is it fundamental? I don't think so legally speaking. In order for a right to be fundamental, inalienable, it must belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction. link

    One might argue that any consenting adults can marry anyone of their choosing, and as such any type of marriage arrangement is fundamental, yet, all throughout historical record, we see only one type of marriage, which raises the question, is marriage that, by presumption alone, inalienable; why then have we ever only seen one type of marriage? between a man, and a woman? Notwithstanding the odd exception, this has been the rule, so, if it is reasonably presumed to be a fundamental right of all humans, why has no one else exercised this right? If the answer is glaring you in the face as it is me, then one must conclude logically, and with this test, that, marriage in not fundamental to human kind, and only fundamental, if any reading is to be extracted, to one man, and one woman.

    Tim-
    Actually, legally speaking, it is a fundamental right because the courts set the precedent in their rulings.

    Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public committment."

    Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-05-10 at 04:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

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