• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...



you were arguing over a label, other posters such as Jallman have explained to me that there are functional differences between the two. :shrug:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Catz Part Deux said:
No. Prop 8 halted the right of gays to marry. It was passed in response to local ordinances in places like San Fran.
Click to expand...

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]
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gays do realize when you marry you lose freedom not gain it
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

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:
Navy Pride said:
He should have reclused himself on this case because he is biased and definitely has a dog in this fight..........
Click to expand...

You have some evidence he wants to get gay married? If not, your argument is patently absurd.
 
ptif219 said:
Not when you are married. Why benefits an issue and taxes are not. There are bad things the government does to married people.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, which is why I think marriage if ****ing stupid to begin with.

However, our legal system has defined marriage as a right and has denied me the right to marry a woman while extending that right to a man. So regardless of how retarded I think the institution of marriage is personally, it's the legal equality that I am concerned with.
 
Navy Pride said:
You already have the same rights. you want a special right...............Hell I can't have 4 wives, why should you be allowed to marry your boyfriend............
Click to expand...

This is a red herring, as has been shown time and again. Gay marriage and polygamy are not the same thing, not even close.
 
CriticalThought said:
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 experssion of emotional support and public committment."

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

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

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recongized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursut of happiness by free men."
Click to expand...

Yes, however if I were arguing in front of the Supremes I'd take the tac that marriage is not fundamental to human beings, only to a specifc class of them.

In other words, the other judges got it wrong. Assuming of course that marriage belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction. :)

So, the conservative supremes will be itching to overturn, and it leaves only Kennedy as the swing vote. He might, or he might not construe fundamental. If it is deemed to be not a fundamental right, then the 14th doesn't apply. States are free to legislate their own desitiny, or in the instant case, by way of ballot initiative.

Tim-
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
I don't disagree with you, which is why I think marriage if ****ing stupid to begin with.

However, our legal system has defined marriage as a right and has denied me the right to marry a woman while extending that right to a man. So regardless of how retarded I think the institution of marriage is personally, it's the legal equality that I am concerned with.
Click to expand...

I don't see where they made it a right other than to tax you. The taxes start with the marriage license and never stop.
 
Hicup said:
Yes, however if I were arguing in front of the Supremes I'd take the tac that marriage is not fundamental to human beings, only to a specifc class of them.

In other words, the other judges got it wrong. Assuming of course that marriage belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

If you want to go through all 4 of those cases and argue why the Supreme Court was wrong in its conclusion that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, then have at it. I'm sure it would make a good thread. However, you asked for the legal precedent, and it is firmly established. The federal government sees marriage as a fundamental right. Neither side of the Prop 8 case argued that marriage was not a fundamental right.
 
ptif219 said:
I don't see where they made it a right other than to tax you. The taxes start with the marriage license and never stop.
Click to expand...

Sooo... you haven't seen these rulings?

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

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

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

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recongized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursut of happiness by free men."
Click to expand...

Hey look, I think the govt should be out of the marriage racket altogether. But until they ARE out of the marriage racket, they need to extend the right equally.
 
danarhea said:
Well, the German people overwhelmingly put the Nazis and Adolf Hitler in power. That didn't make them right either, did it?
Click to expand...

the expressed will of the majorities of 31 of 31 states...

and NAZIS!

LOL!
 
Redress said:
This is a red herring, as has been shown time and again. Gay marriage and polygamy are not the same thing, not even close.
Click to expand...

That's because you are a bigot against polygamists.
 
texmaster said:
There is nothing narrow about an 0-31 record of popular vote.
Click to expand...

That is a deceiving statistic. What is the margin of victory in each case? 31 strait 1 % wins is not an overwhelming majority of opinion.
 
Ikari said:
I would 100% agree with you. To be honest, I think the real solution is to get rid of the marriage license. The "benefits" which you get through the marriage license can be offered in separate contracts. Cause after all things like hospital visitation or guardianship or kids or any of the stuff that comes with the marriage license, an individual should be able to freely assign. But good luck getting the government to give up the marriage license. And so long as the marriage license exists as a state granted and recognized contract; you can't exclude the gays.
Click to expand...

Never going to happen. Also, you failed to mention things like tax law, which is not something individuals can assign.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you want to go through all 4 of those cases and argue why the Supreme Court was wrong in its conclusion that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, then have at it. I'm sure it would make a good thread. However, you asked for the legal precedent, and it is firmly established. The federal government sees marriage as a fundamental right. Neither side of the Prop 8 case argued that marriage was not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

No I'd rather not, but it was an interesting exercise to find a way out for the conservative supremes. :) By the way, precedent doesn't always hold.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom