Prop. 8 and trying to defend marriage

[rossum]

No where in his ruling does it isolate out just same-sex marriages.

Yes it does, as you would know if you had read the full ruling. Incestuous marriages are completely irrelevant to the legal question Judge Walker was asked to decide. Proposition 8 is extremely short, here it is in its entirety:Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is what the Judge was asked to rule on. If you can find any mention of incest in there then please point it out to me. All the other laws and restrictions pertaining to marriage are left unchanged whether or not Proposition 8 is eventually found to be Constitutional or not. This case is about Proposition 8 only and Proposition 8 is about the sex of partners, not about their degree of relationship and not about the number of partners. The Judge can only rule on the case put before him, he cannot rule on the fantasy case you are trying to construct. Go and read both Proposition 8 itself and the Judges finding in the case.

Your dredging up of incest and polygamy is irrelevant. Proposition 8 is solely about the sex of people who can marry and nothing else.

rossum

 

[ERose]

Actually it has to do with the separation of powers and the constitution.

Exactly. This judge is overstepping his boundries and his authority as a judge. With this ruling he legislated from the bench.

Speaking of slavery, it is quite conceivable that some states would have voted to allow slavery even as soon ago as the sixties or seventies.

Who was speaking of slavery? There is absolutely no comparison between blacks and gays. Blacks a race of people who no matter what they do they will always be black and they can never ever be white or oriental etc. I will always be a white caucasion male. I cannot change that aspect about me. But this is not true concerning being gay. Being gay is a lifestyle choice and nothing more. I know that there are alot of you who will say that is not true because some people are born gay. Maybe they are. I don’t truly know except for the fact that science has not proven it one way or the other. But I do know that participating in a sexual relationship with a partner that is the same sex as you is a choice you make. Gays are not genetically or biologically forced to have sex with someone of the same sex.

So do not compare gays with what happen to blacks. They do not compare.

What the judge said was that not allowing one class of people to be married diminished the people in that class. He didn’t say the people were stupid or to shut their mouthes.

No? You don’t think that this judge by his ruling said to the majority of Californians that they were wrong? Even in his ruling, he pointed out that they were duped by the proponents of Prop 8, by false adds, etc. Don’t you think that Californians more than anybody in this country have more experience with this subject? Californians for the most part are a liberal bunch and quite tolerant when it comes to gays, yet they chose to keep marriage off limits. One judge overruled millions of people.

Did he just make a one page brief about his position, that would be calling the people stupid, how elaborate was his paperwork on the case?

If he said not to appeal his ruling , that would be saying shut up, did he do that ?

Did you read his ruling? It was insane. It made no sense and only leads to even greater confusion on the subject. Concerning the appeal, he knew it would be appealed and he know that it will be overturned when it gets up to the US Supreme court, so that part doesn’t matter.

BTW, there is a great thought from Eleanor Roosevelt about being made to feel stupid:“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

I agree. He didn’t make people feel stupid even though he wanted to. He only made himself look foolish.

Consider why some want others to feel that the judge was calling the voters of CA stupid.Why does an element in our political realm want to have people resent being called stupid?

What people wanted the supporters of prop 8 to feel like they were called stupid? And who are those people and groups?

It was a judge.

 

[ERose]

I am not vengeful, I just want to get married.

Find you a good woman and get married, no one is stopping you.

 

[ERose]

Yes it does, as you would know if you had read the full ruling. Incestuous marriages are completely irrelevant to the legal question Judge Walker was asked to decide. Proposition 8 is extremely short, here it is in its entirety:Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is what the Judge was asked to rule on. If you can find any mention of incest in there then please point it out to me. All the other laws and restrictions pertaining to marriage are left unchanged whether or not Proposition 8 is eventually found to be Constitutional or not. This case is about Proposition 8 only and Proposition 8 is about the sex of partners, not about their degree of relationship and not about the number of partners. The Judge can only rule on the case put before him, he cannot rule on the fantasy case you are trying to construct. Go and read both Proposition 8 itself and the Judges finding in the case.

Your dredging up of incest and polygamy is irrelevant. Proposition 8 is solely about the sex of people who can marry and nothing else.

rossum

The argument proposed by this judge can be used in any other courtroom concerning anytype of marriage. The same arguments that he accepted and proposes will apply. I know that he was talking about same-sex marriages, but what I am saying no arguments or conclusions that he proposed would limit this right to just traditional couples and samesex couples only.

If I was a polygamist, I could use the same arguments based upon amendment 14 and should win that case. Why should we prevent polygamists from livings a happy life? The same can be applied to any number of situations.

 

[Kevin42]

Find you a good woman and get married, no one is stopping you.

Ah yes, I am sure that is an excellent idea. Find a woman whom I am not sexually attracted to and marry her into a sexless marriage life and one in which I view her as nothing more than a friend.

Besides that, I would like you to acknowledge I am not vengeful or hateful. I simply want to marry my partner. Basically, your sweeping generalizations about a group of people of which I am a part of are false…perhaps even hateful.

 

[ERose]

Ah yes, I am sure that is an excellent idea. Find a woman whom I am not sexually attracted to and marry her into a sexless marriage life and one in which I view her as nothing more than a friend.

Well don’t get married then. Marriage is not for everyone is it and it sounds like it is not for you. I’m sorry but it is true.

Besides that, I would like you to acknowledge I am not vengeful or hateful. I simply want to marry my partner.

I do not know you well enough to determine your motivations. You saying it on a post doesn’t make it true.

Basically, your sweeping generalizations about a group of people of which I am a part of are false…perhaps even hateful.

Really? Because I speak the truth that you don’t like it is hateful? When did I ever say in my posts anything that was insulting to you? I am voice my opinion on the matter as you are. Should I since you want to corrupt an institution that is very important to me classify you as being border hateful? Don’t throw out that word unless you mean it.

 

[Kevin42]

I do not know you well enough to determine your motivations. You saying it on a post doesn’t make it true.

Well don’t get married then. Marriage is not for everyone is it and it sounds like it is not for you. I’m sorry but it is true.

Your Christian charity requires that you believe all things. Since you have no reason to believe that I am a liar, and since I am presuming you are a Christian, I would ask that you acknowledge me as a person. When you do acknowledge me, please consider that I am probably alot like you and that I have no vengeful or hateful motivations.

Also, I would like you to comment on whether or not you believe it is just for a gay man to marry a woman? If you say no, then perhaps you shouldn’t use that argument when you say that I have the same rights as you. I do not have the right to marry the person that I love, the only person I will ever love.

I do not know you well enough to determine your motivations. You saying it on a post doesn’t make it true.

Well don’t get married then. Marriage is not for everyone is it and it sounds like it is not for you. I’m sorry but it is true.

Your Christian charity requires that you believe all things. Since you have no reason to doubt that I am a liar, and since I am presuming you are a Christian, I would ask that you acknowledge me as a person. When you do acknowledge me, please consider that I am probably alot like you and that I have no vengeful or hateful motivations.

Also, I would like you to comment on whether or not you believe it is just for a gay man to marry a woman? If you say no, then perhaps you shouldn’t use that argument when you say that I have the same rights as you. I do not have the right to marry the person that I love, the only person I will ever love.

To address your edit:

You said that people who “attack the institution of marriage” (I am assuming that would include me since I would pursue a gay marriage) are hateful and vengeful people. I am neither. If you would ask my parents, family, friends, and partner, you might discover that. If deriding me as being hateful and negative when I am not is not hateful, then please tell me what it is.

 

[ERose]

Your Christian charity requires that you believe all things.

No you are confusing belief and charity. My Christian charity requires me to love everyone. Which, believe it our not I do. We are called to love the sinner but hate the sin. I love you as a fellow human being, but I do not love that which you do and I pray that you stop doing what you do so that one day we may meet in heaven. I do not advocate nor have I any any other post “gay bashing”. If I seen you in the street, being attacked believe it our not I would help you out and not turn a blind eye. That is what we are called to do.

Since you have no reason to doubt that I am a liar, and since I am presuming you are a Christian,

I do not know you. As far as I know you can be whoever trying to win an argument. Until I know I cannot comment on your motivations.

I would ask that you acknowledge me as a person. When you do acknowledge me, please consider that I am probably alot like you and that I have no vengeful or hateful motivations.

When have I not acknowledge you as a person? Do you have proof? You are a human being just like every other human being. Maybe you don’t have vengeful or hateful motivations but those that are speaking for you and other gays do. Don’t believe me, just blog it.

Also, I would like you to comment on whether or not you believe it is just for a gay man to marry a woman?

Yes. There have been many men and women who have turned away from homosexual activity and are happily involved in a heterosexual relationships and marriages.

If you say no, then perhaps you shouldn’t use that argument when you say that I have the same rights as you.

Well I guess I can still use the same arguments can’t I.

I do not have the right to marry the person that I love, the only person I will ever love.

Sorry,forgot this one. Contrary to popular belief marriage is not primarily about love. It is about procreation. A man and woman procreating together to produce a child or children. That is it’s primary function. Love is secondary.

 

[Kevin42]

"Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. "

I think you could learn a lesson from Scrooge and more carefully decide what you communicate when you speak of people you don’t know. Many gays are not hateful or vengeful.

By your logic, I can call Catholics hateful and vengeful, since some of them are.

And sure, continue to argue whatever you would like, I honestly don’t care. I have enough faith in the American legal system to believe that justice will prevail sooner or later.

 

[larkin31]

Exactly. This judge is overstepping his boundries and his authority as a judge. With this ruling he legislated from the bench.

Incorrect.

He wrote no law. This is a misrepresentation of one of the roles of the courts. Is it “legislating from the bench” to now appeal and reverse the recent ruling? Is it wrong for the courts ever to review (either to strike down or uphold) laws? Do you only complain when a law is struck down or changed, but not when a law is upheld? In BOTH cases the court is performing the same review task.

 

[larkin31]

Have you read the ruling? The judge based his ruling exclusively on the 14th amendment. ** Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.**

What??? That’s not the 14th amendment.

Here is the 14th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1 is the relevant one for this case, and which the judge referred specifically to.

Yes, I have read the ruling. Would you care to cite a passage from it for us to discuss to show that you have?

 

[ERose]

"Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. "

I think you could learn a lesson from Scrooge and more carefully decide what you communicate when you speak of people you don’t know. Many gays are not hateful or vengeful.

By your logic, I can call Catholics hateful and vengeful, since some of them are.

And sure, continue to argue whatever you would like, I honestly don’t care. I have enough faith in the American legal system to believe that justice will prevail sooner or later.

I did not say that all gays are vengeful and hateful. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Now you are going to start misquoting scripture? Interesting.

What have i said that is hateful?

 

[ERose]

What??? That’s not the 14th amendment.

Here is the 14th Amendment:

Section 1 is the relevant one for this case, and which the judge referred specifically to.

Yes, I have read the ruling. Would you care to cite a passage from it for us to discuss to show that you have?

1st of all I know what the 14th amendment is but obviously you have read it you just posted it. In article one it possesses the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, which is used in this case by the judge to justify his ruling as shown below. Of course you would have know it if you read the ruling, which obviously you didn’t.

*CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to
marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.*

 

[larkin31]

1st of all I know what the 14th amendment is but obviously you have read it you just posted it. In article one it possesses the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, which is used in this case by the judge to justify his ruling as shown below. Of course you would have know it if you read the ruling, which obviously you didn’t.

hahahaha

dude

I quoted this passage and posted the link to the ruling three times already at CA

maybe you just missed it

*CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment*. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to
marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.

which part would you like to discuss from the case?

 

[larkin31]

Congratulations: you are the first one in these recent threads to quote from the document. Now, what is your disagreement with the 28 pages that follow and explain his thinking?

 

[rossum]

The argument proposed by this judge can be used in any other courtroom concerning anytype of marriage.

This court case was about the sex of the partners. The arguments put forward in court by the plaintiffs and by the defendants related solely to the sex of the partners. Any other evidence would have been irrelevant in this specific case. The judge’s ruling only covered the evidence presented to him in court.

Had the case been about the degree of relatedness of the partners then both plaintiffs and defendants would have presented different evidence relevant to the different case. The judge would have ruled on that different evidence.

The judge ruled on the case and evidence presented in court. You cannot know how he would have ruled on a different case with different evidence.

The same arguments that he accepted and proposes will apply.

In the case of incest there would have been evidence of the real dangers of genetic damage to children. One of the points the judge made in his ruling was that he had seen no evidence in court of real damage caused by same sex marriage. That point alone is enough to make a major difference to the quality of evidence in the two cases.

If I was a polygamist, I could use the same arguments based upon amendment 14 and should win that case. Why should we prevent polygamists from livings a happy life? The same can be applied to any number of situations.

I am a Buddhist, so I have less of a problem with polygamous/polyandrous marriage. Your religion is not the only one and other religions have a different attitude. Again, you need to think of possible evidence indicating real harm that could be presented in court.

rossum

 

[larkin31]

…One of the points the judge made in his ruling was that he had seen no evidence in court of real damage caused by same sex marriage. That point alone is enough to make a major difference to the quality of evidence in the two cases…

Indeed, the judge noted the paucity of evidence provided. The defense hardly tried on this count. Honestly, I don’t think that there is any. No one has ever shown any that I have seen.

 

[ERose]

hahahaha

dude

I quoted this passage and posted the link to the ruling three times already at CA

maybe you just missed it

Dude, maybe I did miss it. I don’t hit every thread, dude. So you posted it three times and yet you did not know that the ruling was based primarily on the 14th amendment? Perhaps you should start reading what you posted.

which part would you like to discuss from the case?

It is already out there. I was answering a question proposed by you, dude.

 

[larkin31]

Dude, maybe I did miss it. I don’t hit every thread, dude. So you posted it three times and yet you did not know that the ruling was based primarily on the 14th amendment? Perhaps you should start reading what you posted.

It is already out there. I was answering a question proposed by you, dude.

Let me look up.

 

[ERose]

Indeed, the judge noted the paucity of evidence provided. The defense hardly tried on this count. Honestly, I don’t think that there is any. No one has ever shown any that I have seen.

I agree with you that they did not have the proper people as experts on the defendant’s side. Even so, they still provided a better argument than the plantiffs. What was their argument? It makes us feel uncomfortable? I had to tell a bank manager what kind of loan I wanted because I couldn’t tell him that my partner was my husband? What kind of argument is that?

For the record, give me an argument for that isn’t just “Why not?”. That has been the only argument proposed on this subject from your side.