Prop. 8 and trying to defend marriage

[larkin31]

prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/16/breaking-9th-circuit-stays-judge-walkers-ruling-appeal-scheduled-december-6/

And this last one states specifically that the Prop 8 supporters (the defendants in the first trial, and the appealers in this next phase) may not have standing to appeal to the fed district court.

In other words, all four of these links do NOT support what you claim. In fact, 3 specifically contradict you, and one (by E Meese) is critical of the ruling but on entirely different grounds.

I suggest that you reread these.

 

[rossum]

Yes, but you must understand that these types of rulings are used in other cases. Even in this case other rulings that did not even apply to same-sex marriage that was used by this judge for justification of his ruling here is just 4 examples for you to look over:

1. Turner v Safely
2. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur
3. Loving v Virginia
4. Griswold v Connecticut

But all of these cases where used in one form or another to justify his ruling.

These cases all relate to the nature of marriage, which is obviously relevant in this case. In the case of incest there will be less evidence about the nature of marriage and more about the effects of incest.

Most probably he would have because in this situation he wouldn’t have “skin in the game” so to say.

How do you know that he does not want to marry a close relation? He made the point that the defendants did not produce a lot of evidence of any actual harm caused by same sex marriage. In the case of incest there is obvious evidence of harm.

I agree with you on this one.

I does seem that the one thing both sides, and the judge, can agree on is that the defendants put forward a very poor case.

I want to point out that you are the one that added the incest point into the discussion. But let me ask you something. What if the two related individuals promised not to have children? Would that then be ok with you? I mean surely you don’t want someone not to be happy do you?

I am against incest in pretty much all cases, not just because of children but because of the effects of the individuals involved.

Have you done any real study on the same-sex couples? There are alot of stats out there that you should look at.

There are indeed some very promiscuous gays just as there are also some very promiscuous heterosexuals, though the stats for lesbians usually differ from those for gay men. Would you allow lesbians to marry each other on the basis of those same statistics? I do not trust a lot of the statistical studies in this area, too many people have an agenda. For example I did a small study of heterosexual marriage which showed that 100% of heterosexual marriages involve sexual activity with an outside party, however my study is not reliable because I selected Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Ted Haggard and John F Kennedy as my subjects.

Promiscuity is irrelevant in any case. We allow promiscuous heterosexuals to marry so promiscuity is not a legal barrier to marriage.

rossum

 

[ERose]

And this last one states specifically that the Prop 8 supporters (the defendants in the first trial, and the appealers in this next phase) may not have standing to appeal to the fed district court.

In other words, all four of these links do NOT support what you claim. In fact, 3 specifically contradict you, and one (by E Meese) is critical of the ruling but on entirely different grounds.

I suggest that you reread these.

Sorry about that Larkin. I gave you the wrong one. I have been reading too much about this and got some wires crossed. The two links I should have referred to are:

blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/12/analyzing-the-prop-8-appeal/

and

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604254.html

That being said. I think I am going to have to backtrack a little bit. The more I read on this situation the more I am being convinced that it will not get to the Supreme Court, but rather Judge Walker’s ruling will be held and same-sex marriages will become legal in CA. I think that it would take a miracle for Prop 8 not to be overturned, primarily because the will of the State Government is not in it.

Of course if that happens then what happens in CA stays in CA and it will not directly effect the rest of the Country. But we will see.

 

[larkin31]

Sorry about that Larkin. I gave you the wrong one. I have been reading too much about this and got some wires crossed. The two links I should have referred to are:

blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/12/analyzing-the-prop-8-appeal/

and

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604254.html

That being said. I think I am going to have to backtrack a little bit. The more I read on this situation the more I am being convinced that it will not get to the Supreme Court, but rather Judge Walker’s ruling will be held and same-sex marriages will become legal in CA. I think that it would take a miracle for Prop 8 not to be overturned, primarily because the will of the State Government is not in it.

Of course if that happens then what happens in CA stays in CA and it will not directly effect the rest of the Country. But we will see.

yes, we shall see. It is a landmark ruling, and these are not always upheld. BUT, appeals courts have a history of turning down even hearing cases if the litigants have no “legal standing.”

 

[ERose]

These cases all relate to the nature of marriage, which is obviously relevant in this case. In the case of incest there will be less evidence about the nature of marriage and more about the effects of incest.

I guess I have to remind you that the discussion we where have was dealing with the effects this ruling could have on other types of cases dealing with people wanting to be married. So I did make my point. This judge used other cases that had nothing to do with same sex marriage to defend his ruling in this case as can other judges use this ruling to rule in favor of those who would like to have whatever marriage they want whether it is with more than one person, their dog, their sister or brother, or whatever. You are trying to change the scope of the argument because you have lost the argument as it stands.

How do you know that he does not want to marry a close relation? He made the point that the defendants did not produce a lot of evidence of any actual harm caused by same sex marriage. In the case of incest there is obvious evidence of harm.

What is the harm if it is two sisters that want to get married or two brothers? Neither couple can procreate so from your line of thinking this is allowable.

I am against incest in pretty much all cases, not just because of children but because of the effects of the individuals involved.

That is being very hurtful of you towards the citizens that are into an incest lifestyle. How dare you tell this people how to live their life? For shame.

(Disclaimer: I would like to point out for those you have just started reading this thread that I personally do not advocate incest, beastiality, or polygamy. I am just arguing a point.)

There are indeed some very promiscuous gays just as there are also some very promiscuous heterosexuals, though the stats for lesbians usually differ from those for gay men. Would you allow lesbians to marry each other on the basis of those same statistics? I do not trust a lot of the statistical studies in this area, too many people have an agenda. For example I did a small study of heterosexual marriage which showed that 100% of heterosexual marriages involve sexual activity with an outside party, however my study is not reliable because I selected Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Ted Haggard and John F Kennedy as my subjects.

Stats are all that you have to go off of. Unless you intimately know every or a solid sample of gay, lesbian, heterosexual couple out there intimately you cannot make an informed decision on this subject you are trying to do I think. The stats I try to use are the ones from what should be unbias sources or confirmation of stats on both sides of the aisle.

Promiscuity is irrelevant in any case. We allow promiscuous heterosexuals to marry so promiscuity is not a legal barrier to marriage.

Yes it is relevant when discussing the impact on other members of the family group especially the children and the partner that is being cheated on.

 

[sedonaman]

How does it happen that these judges, who, after all, have generally been raised and educated in our society, should have such a radically different view of the meaning and value of marriage? Most important, what is the source of their authority to make their view determinative such that we are bound to accept and respect it? The answer to the first question is that they are merely affirming their adherence to what they consider the more prestigious side in a cultural conflict. William F. Buckley famously stated that he would rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. This is surely also one of his wisest observations. The Harvard faculty, brilliant as all its members undoubtedly are, live immersed in a world of words that enable them to imagine situations and reach conclusions so removed from our social norms that to ordinary persons they would be literally unthinkable. Brilliance, unfortunately, is not the only, or perhaps even the most essential element, of good judgment. On the contrary, it often leads to an overestimation of one’s wisdom and goodness and ability to rethink and remake the world.

The most serious defect of the form of government we have permitted to evolve from the form of government created by our state and federal constitutions is that in effect we are now being ruled by the Harvard faculty, albeit only through judges, persons once removed from and not necessarily all quite as brilliant as that faculty. Our judges, all educated (or at least processed) through college and law school, are the products of Harvard (and, perhaps even worse, Yale), their equivalents, and their many lesser imitators.
…

Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. …

– Lino Graglia

There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.

– George Orwell

 

[ERose]

yes, we shall see. It is a landmark ruling, and these are not always upheld. BUT, appeals courts have a history of turning down even hearing cases if the litigants have no “legal standing.”

Larkin, I will be honest, I think that have gone as far as I can go on this subject you and I are discussing. I concede that i have no idea how this is going to go. So i am done with our discussion I think. I have said my piece and my belief has not changed.

 

[portarica]

No real affect?

massresistance.org/

This is not about privacy but forcing people to accept something.

God bless,
Ed

So you are saying that you are forced to accept the notion that your marriage will be weakened if a gay couple gets married?

Does your wife agree with that as well? Will she love you less if that guy on "How I met your mother " gets hitched?

Just wondering.

Peace

 

[catholicusmc]

I am grateful to see that there are Catholics who feel as I do about Proposition 8. Why this was put under the category of Social Justice confuses me. It seems the most socially just thing to do is to allow God’s people to be themselves. I recall one mass where the priest said that those opposed to Prop. 8 needed to go back to biology class. Oh no I thought! He was unable to account for why things happen such as those born both genders. Do we throw them out because of their biology and say the Church’s doors are closed? Where is the respect of the human life in that. Talk about creating a new number of suicides from bullying! Does the Church qualify then as a bully pulpit? I hope not. The face of God is present in ALL people.

 

[sedonaman]

… It seems the most socially just thing to do is to allow God’s people to be themselves…

I wouldn’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world like that.

 

[edwest2]

I am grateful to see that there are Catholics who feel as I do about Proposition 8. Why this was put under the category of Social Justice confuses me. It seems the most socially just thing to do is to allow God’s people to be themselves. I recall one mass where the priest said that those opposed to Prop. 8 needed to go back to biology class. Oh no I thought! He was unable to account for why things happen such as those born both genders. Do we throw them out because of their biology and say the Church’s doors are closed? Where is the respect of the human life in that. Talk about creating a new number of suicides from bullying! Does the Church qualify then as a bully pulpit? I hope not. The face of God is present in ALL people.

Why are you posting alarmist, poorly thought out statements? Bullying is something that occurs in reall life involving real people. What you are saying is bullying is simply being against something. That is faulty and plain wrong.

The Church welcomes all people. When I took my formerly bisexual girlfriend to Church, nobody asked for our sexual orientation or gender identity at the door. Please stop this.

God bless,
Ed