Prop. 8 and trying to defend marriage

[larkin31]

Well guess what my friend if this ruling holds in CA then incestuous marriages, polygamist, etc. No where in his ruling does it isolate out just same-sex marriages. He uses the 14th amendment as the foundation of his ruling and from his argument using the 14th amendment, for the most part anything goes. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So why can’t the incestous, polygamists, animal-lovers, etc. be left out of the pursuit of happiness?

What you will see in the near future if this ruling stands is other types of marriages will becomes acceptable. Heck in my opinion the polygamist have a better argument than the gay couples do…

Ok, here.

Well, this was answered by Rossum already. I agree with Rossum. The judge, in his ruling, lays out ALL the criteria that must be met to deprive a citizen of either due process or equal treatment (it CAN be done). Then he moves through each criteria. I agreed with his point each time. And not one of them had anything to do with bestiality, incest, etc. If you are going to make a “slippery slope” case, then you MUST LINK, CAUSALLY homosexual marriage and incest (or whichever one of these you wish to suggest). In other words, you must DEMONSTRATE (not just claim) that homosexuality leads to incest. The judge, in his ruling (after page 110) refers to the paucity of evidence presented (there was none, basically) that homosexual marriage in any way harms or is deleterious to any individuals or to society. This was the weakest part of the defendants’ case (in my judgment).

As Rossum has already pointed out, the case challenged the law ONLY on the exclusion of certain people from certain marriages on the basis of gender. The litigants did not challenge the age restrictions or family relatedness restrictions of Prop 8 or other marriage statutes. Those cases, had they occurred, may have been similar in some ways (look for evidence of harm, look at history of law) but would have been ONLY about either age or family relatedness. There is no “slippery slope” the other direction either. People in this country have ALREADY challenged polygamy laws. What, after all, is wrong with challenging a law if you think it is wrong? After all, Prop 8 is the result of people thinking that a law was wrong!

 

[larkin31]

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?

pages 1-110 of the ruling summarize the case. With categories.

 

[larkin31]

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.

Read the summaries, by the judge, of each side’s position. They begin on page 5. After the summaries comes the judge’s review of the entire case in greater detail. There is no need to ask me what each side asked for or did; it is all there for us to read.

here, again, is the link for anyone else who wants it… glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf

 

[larkin31]

Oh, if you are asking WHY bring the case forward at all, that is easy: the couples in question were told that they cannot marry whom they wish solely because of that person’s gender.

 

[portarica]

No Larkin you are not getting the point. It is a slippery slope because if you allow same-sex marriage then you are going to eventually allow all forms of marriage that humanities perverted minds can come up with.

We are going to destroy 1000s of years old definition of marriage for the sake of maybe a percent of a percent of the population? That is stupid and deranged.

Not only that this is a blatant attempt to destroy marriage by the extremist on the left. These people already have the same rights as me and my wife do except to call each other husband or wife. Ask yourself then why are they doing this? Because these people that are behind these attacks are hateful and vengeful people, that is why.

If your think your marriage is in trouble only because someone told you that your marriage will be weakened if some gay couple in Boston or San Francisco gets hitched, you should be considering the motivation of the person who planted that thought in your mind and why they want you to feel that way.

If your second cousin who is gay gets married and your marriage falls apart as the result of that ceremony, then there are some much bigger issues in your marriage, that need to be straightened out , and they have nothing to do with a couple of gay people getting hitched.

But it is so much easier to blame a small group of people who have no real effect upon our lives than to grapple with the issues of treating all people like they may be Him in the guise of the least.

Peace

 

[sedonaman]

…Should Thurogood Marshall have recused himself in Loving v. Virgina, or Brown v. Board of Education because he was black…

This the same argument that same-sex “marriage” is a civil right.

 

[edwest2]

If your think your marriage is in trouble only because someone told you that your marriage will be weakened if some gay couple in Boston or San Francisco gets hitched, you should be considering the motivation of the person who planted that thought in your mind and why they want you to feel that way.

If your second cousin who is gay gets married and your marriage falls apart as the result of that ceremony, then there are some much bigger issues in your marriage, that need to be straightened out , and they have nothing to do with a couple of gay people getting hitched.

But it is so much easier to blame a small group of people who have no real effect upon our lives than to grapple with the issues of treating all people like they may be Him in the guise of the least.

Peace

No real affect?

massresistance.org/

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

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

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.

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: Gave prisoners the right to marry without the approval of the warden. Note this is not each other but a woman or man outside of prison normally. Anything in there about same sex relationships? No.
2. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: Changed maternity rules in the school system to allow pregnant teachers the opportunity to have a baby without facing penalties from the school board. Anything? No.
3. Loving v Virginia: allowed inter-racial marriages. Main one he used. Same-sex marriage? No.
4. Griswold v Connecticut: Use of Contraception. Nope nothing on same-sex here either.

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

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.

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

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.

I agree with you on this one. Also as I have said before the individuals arguing this case for the defendents were not the people that should have been arguing this case. They came unprepared and did not do the side of the defendants justice. Granted neither did the plantiffs either. Their case in my opinion was even weaker than the defendants. But the defendants alone were forced to convince this judge. The judge already was for the plantiffs.

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.

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 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,

Have you done any real study on the same-sex couples? There are alot of stats out there that you should look at. Many of them are really incredible and many of them are not contested by the Gay-Right movement. There was plenty of evidence that could have been used to defend prop 8. I really do not know what these defendents where doing unless they knew that they did not have a shot in the world getting past this judge and where thinking supreme court all the way.

 

[ERose]

Ok, here.

Well, this was answered by Rossum already. I agree with Rossum. The judge, in his ruling, lays out ALL the criteria that must be met to deprive a citizen of either due process or equal treatment (it CAN be done). Then he moves through each criteria. I agreed with his point each time. And not one of them had anything to do with bestiality, incest, etc. If you are going to make a “slippery slope” case, then you MUST LINK, CAUSALLY homosexual marriage and incest (or whichever one of these you wish to suggest). In other words, you must DEMONSTRATE (not just claim) that homosexuality leads to incest. The judge, in his ruling (after page 110) refers to the paucity of evidence presented (there was none, basically) that homosexual marriage in any way harms or is deleterious to any individuals or to society. This was the weakest part of the defendants’ case (in my judgment).

As Rossum has already pointed out, the case challenged the law ONLY on the exclusion of certain people from certain marriages on the basis of gender. The litigants did not challenge the age restrictions or family relatedness restrictions of Prop 8 or other marriage statutes. Those cases, had they occurred, may have been similar in some ways (look for evidence of harm, look at history of law) but would have been ONLY about either age or family relatedness. There is no “slippery slope” the other direction either. People in this country have ALREADY challenged polygamy laws. What, after all, is wrong with challenging a law if you think it is wrong? After all, Prop 8 is the result of people thinking that a law was wrong!

Larkin,

I answered this one in the above post. If you need anymore clarificaiton please let me know.

 

[ERose]

Oh, if you are asking WHY bring the case forward at all, that is easy: the couples in question were told that they cannot marry whom they wish solely because of that person’s gender.

The good thing about all of this is that it shows people what “Legislation from the Bench” is all about. It will most probably be struck down by the 9th district because of a few technicalities that have recently surfaced anyway.

Did you know that this Judge allowed the wrong people to defend the case? It was suppose to be the Attorney General, who is in a election year so he did not want to touch it. Also it was not a class action suit, so if it stands it would most probably only apply to the two couples that were the plantiffs. So alot of experts believe it won’t get to the supreme court at all. But we will see in I think the end of December.

 

[ERose]

If your think your marriage is in trouble only because someone told you that your marriage will be weakened if some gay couple in Boston or San Francisco gets hitched, you should be considering the motivation of the person who planted that thought in your mind and why they want you to feel that way.

I didn’t say that. My primary gripe is against this judge overruling an amendment to the constitution in CA voted on by the people in a legal manner. Of course it will be ok in the end because I am starting to think from what I have been reading that even the 9th circuit smells something fishy from this ruling which would really impress me since that circuit has long been considered the most liberal of circuits.

If your second cousin who is gay gets married and your marriage falls apart as the result of that ceremony, then there are some much bigger issues in your marriage, that need to be straightened out , and they have nothing to do with a couple of gay people getting hitched.

Again you are supplying a ridiculous argument. Surely you can do better than that. I would figure that you would not want your cousin to get married to someone of the same sex because that makes it a whole lot more difficult for him to find redemption.

But it is so much easier to blame a small group of people who have no real effect upon our lives than to grapple with the issues of treating all people like they may be Him in the guise of the least.

So you are taking this all out of context now? Show me where I have been hateful? Tell me what I have written that is evil or wrong on this subject? You know what I will save you the time. You can’t. I have provided my opinions on this thread and I have backed my opinions normally by facts.

I want to let you and anyone else who tries this stupid ignorant tactic again, Stop. I will not be silenced because you cannot handle the truth. I am sorry that the truth hurts sometimes or it is not what you want to believe is truth. But you are not going to silence me by saying I am hateful and not being Christian. I believe that in this conversation which I have to give individuals like Larkin and Rossum credit, it has be a honest debate about this issue and I would like to thank them for that.

 

[larkin31]

The good thing about all of this is that it shows people what “Legislation from the Bench” is all about. It will most probably be struck down by the 9th district because of a few technicalities that have recently surfaced anyway.

Did you know that this Judge allowed the wrong people to defend the case? It was suppose to be the Attorney General, who is in a election year so he did not want to touch it.

The defendants were proper.

Also it was not a class action suit, so if it stands it would most probably only apply to the two couples that were the plantiffs…

I disagree. The law can be struck down even if there is only one plaintiff.

This is what the trial ruling states:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment, an issue not raised during any prior state court proceeding. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 22, 2009, naming as defendants in their official capacities California’s Governor, Attorney General and Director and Deputy Director of Public Health and the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
(collectively “the government defendants”). Doc #1. With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, Doc #39, the government defendants refused to take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to
defend Proposition 8. Doc #42 (Alameda County), Doc #41 (Los Angeles County), Doc #46 (Governor and Department of Public Health officials).
\
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of Proposition 8 under California election law (“proponents”), were granted leave in July 2009 to intervene to defend the
constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc #76. On January 8, 2010, Hak-Shing William Tam, an official proponent and defendantintervenor, moved to withdraw as a defendant, Doc #369; Tam’s motion is denied for the reasons stated in a separate order filed
herewith. Plaintiff-intervenor City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF” or “San Francisco”) was granted leave to intervene in August 2009. Doc #160 (minute entry).

 

[larkin31]

I didn’t say that. My primary gripe is against this judge overruling an amendment to the constitution in CA voted on by the people in a legal manner.

Not all laws made by people or their representatives have been Constitutional. That the referendum passed does not make it Constitutional, nor that it will always been seen that way. There is no such guarantee anywhere in our system or in the Constitution.

 

[sedonaman]

Not all laws made by people or their representatives have been Constitutional. That the referendum passed does not make it Constitutional, nor that it will always been seen that way. There is no such guarantee anywhere in our system or in the Constitution.

And, “constitutional law has very little to do with a constitution. It has become essentially a device or ruse for policymaking by judges.”

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200101/ai_n8934944

 

[ERose]

The defendants were proper.

I disagree. The law can be struck down even if there is only one plaintiff.

This is what the trial ruling states:

No they were not. The defendant was suppose to be the state of CA not prop8 activists. Read up on it.

There is constitution law professors and experts saying that is not the case.

I’m not going to say I am an expert on law. I am just parroting what I heard and read. Here are some articles for you:

LA times article:
articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815

articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815

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

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

 

[ERose]

Not all laws made by people or their representatives have been Constitutional. That the referendum passed does not make it Constitutional, nor that it will always been seen that way. There is no such guarantee anywhere in our system or in the Constitution.

We are talking about a state constitution not the federal constitution. This was an amendment to the CA state constitution not the Federal One. From what I understand it needs to pass the smell test to insure that it does not contradict the Federal Constitution, which in my opinion it does not. This is also validated by the fact that I believe 30 states have a marriage clause in their state constitutions already. Why have these amendments been overturned as of yet considering that these amendments started in 1998 with Hawaii & Alaska. You would figure that has been plenty of time to get overturned in the federal systems if all of these amendments are unconstitutional.

 

[larkin31]

No they were not. The defendant was suppose to be the state of CA not prop8 activists. Read up on it.

I did, and copied the ruling on the issue.

I’ll read one of these articles soon.

I am not expert either.

 

[larkin31]

We are talking about a state constitution not the federal constitution. This was an amendment to the CA state constitution not the Federal One. From what I understand it needs to pass the smell test to insure that it does not contradict the Federal Constitution, which in my opinion it does not. This is also validated by the fact that I believe 30 states have a marriage clause in their state constitutions already. Why have these amendments been overturned as of yet considering that these amendments started in 1998 with Hawaii & Alaska. You would figure that has been plenty of time to get overturned in the federal systems if all of these amendments are unconstitutional.

Dunno. Someone has to have the cajones and money and good lawyers to sue. And the time must feel right. Because something has been legal, does not mean that it will always be. You acknowledge this, right?

 

[larkin31]

No they were not. The defendant was suppose to be the state of CA not prop8 activists. Read up on it.

There is constitution law professors and experts saying that is not the case.

I’m not going to say I am an expert on law. I am just parroting what I heard and read. Here are some articles for you:

LA times article:
articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815

This very first one is on the “standing” of the defendents to “appeal,” not on the standing of the parties in the first case:

Now, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court — could well rule that opponents of same-sex marriage have no standing to appeal U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision striking down Proposition 8.

 

[larkin31]

No they were not. The defendant was suppose to be the state of CA not prop8 activists. Read up on it.

There is constitution law professors and experts saying that is not the case.

I’m not going to say I am an expert on law. I am just parroting what I heard and read. Here are some articles for you:

LA times article:
articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815

articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815

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

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

The second link is on the appeals standing.

The third is not about the standing of the plaintiffs or defendants at all.