Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[Lokabrenna]

I look forward to the day when all 50 states support marriage equity, and I live in Canada, where I am free to marry someone I love (should that day ever come).

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Only if you are not very bright.

If you ban same-sex marriage on the grounds that homosexual couples cannot naturally produce children within their marriage then you must also prohibit all individuals incapable or unwilling to produce children from marrying. After all, a bum ovary or seminal vesicle can’t contribute to the survival of humanity and is useless to society. Besides, you’d once again create an issue of second class citizenry which, as you should know, is unconstitutional and frowned upon by the Supreme Court.

 

[PRmerger]

I look forward to the day when all 50 states support marriage equity, and I live in Canada, where I am free to marry someone I love (should that day ever come).

No one–heterosexual or not–can marry anyone he/she loves.

We *all *have to succumb to certain parameters and limits.

 

[rlg94086]

If you ban same-sex marriage on the grounds that homosexual couples cannot naturally produce children within their marriage then you must also prohibit all individuals incapable or unwilling to produce children from marrying. Otherwise, you create an issue of second class citizenry which, as you should know, is unconstitutional and frowned upon by the Supreme Court.

No, that isn’t true. You are taking an intrinsic inability to produce (same sex union) and comparing it to individual cases. It is an idiotic comparison.

 

[Lokabrenna]

No one–heterosexual or not–can marry anyone he/she loves.

We *all *have to succumb to certain parameters and limits.

Well, I look forward to the day when one consenting adult can marry another consenting adult, regardless of “bits”. Obviously I don’t support marriage between humans and buildings, or adults and children, or humans and non-human animals, and I suspect anyone in their right mind would say the same.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

No, that isn’t true.

Of course its true. In reducing the institution of secular marriage to a matter of eggs and sperm you create an entirely new standard which must be universally applied in order to be a constitutional restriction. There is no grey area when it comes to civil rights.

 

[He_Man]

I look forward to the day when all 50 states support marriage equity, and I live in Canada, where I am free to marry someone I love (should that day ever come).

Sadly, if you actually loved them, you wouldn’t endanger their soul by engaging in mutual sin. What you feel isn’t defined as love.

 

[Politica]

One thing to consider on the legal side – Prop. 8 was voted upon by the citizens of California as they use a referendum system. 7 million Californians voted for Prop. 8 to preserve marriage as defined as one man and one woman. Prop 8 was already an undo of a previous ruling by the California Supreme Court which ruled that a ban on gay marriage violated California’s constitution. California had already banned bay marriage before all this Prop. 8 stuff came into being.

Without going into the merits of one argument or the other, California has a process for making law. No court should make law – but interpret law. By overturning Prop. 8, the 9th Cir. is trying to “make” law, despite the voters right to a referendum which passed by 52%. Further, the overtuning of Prop. 8 was written (with judicial hubris) as a warning to the USSC to NOT take the appeal.

This is an abuse of the judicial process. They can do this forever. The voters spoke.

In the meantime, there is no gay marriage in California. The Prop. 8 ban remains in effect as we will see if the USSC feels duly “warned” (by a lower court) not to take the 9th Cir. decision under review.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Without going into the merits of one argument or the other, California has a process for making law. No court should make law – but interpret law. By overturning Prop. 8, the 9th Cir. is trying to “make” law, despite the voters right to a referendum which passed by 52%. Further, the overtuning of Prop. 8 was written (with judicial hubris) as a warning to the USSC to NOT take the appeal.

This is an abuse of the judicial process. They can do this forever. The voters spoke.

In the meantime, there is no gay marriage in California. The Prop. 8 ban remains in effect as we will see if the USSC feels duly “warned” (by a lower court) not to take the 9th Cir. decision under review.

If its deemed unconstitutional by the judiciary it dosent matter if 99.99999% of the population supports the law, its unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see if what the USSC does next.

 

[Befink]

With all due respect rig I was hoping for better than that.

1. Say to my gay friends that it’s disordered? That is only an opinion. No wonder the courts throw that out. If I ever get something good I would actually go to them and say it! No way I would run with “disordered”.
2. ‘Same sex civil unions are disordered and not good for society’. There is absolutely no evidence of this in the secular world. We’re 9 pages into this thread and nobody can show a study, article, or anything supporting that. No wonder the courts don’t buy it.
3. Children ARE better off in a typical home than not but then why do we allow single parents, divorced parents to have them? Being gay is just one element of the parent. It’s amazing that conservative Christians would rather see children stay in the foster system than be adopted by gay parents who will love them. It also contradicts conservative opinions that government should be smaller (govt pays for the foster system) and pro-life arguments which require significantly more adoptions.
4. Why we treat gays the way we do is unacceptable in a moral community. The Chaput called for us to speak out when moral issues are violated in society (capital punishment, gun control, rights of the poor, etc.). That is different than an individual who wants to find peace at church. With the individual, we do not know their story and therefore should not pass judgment on them. They have their own relationship with God to deal with. They are already well aware of our teachings. This is true whether it’s two gays guys holding hands when they enter church or that adulterous couple you mentioned. Our job is to walk with them on their spiritual journey not make their journey go where we think it should go.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I look forward to the day when one consenting adult can marry another consenting adult, regardless of “bits”

Surely you mean a consenting adult who’s not already married, right?

So there’s still quite a few restrictions on your paradigm, yes?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Surely you mean a consenting adult who’s not already married, right?

So there’s still quite a few restrictions on your paradigm, yes?

Well, I personally would extend the definition to recognize multiple-partner unions (but only if ALL parties consent to it), but I think we need to take things one step at a time. At the very least, my paradigm isn’t as restrictive as advocates of “traditional marriage”. I don’t support cheating by any means.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I personally would extend the definition to recognize multiple-partner unions (but only if ALL parties consent to it), but I think we need to take things one step at a time. **At the very least, my paradigm isn’t as restrictive as advocates of “traditional marriage”. **I don’t support cheating by any means.

Fair enough.

But it is, well, restrictive, right?

You are not advocating that anyone can marry anyone.

So why do you get to set parameters for who can marry but others can’t?

 

[rlg94086]

Of course its true. In reducing the institution of secular marriage to a matter of eggs and sperm you create an entirely new standard which must be universally applied in order to be a constitutional restriction. There is no grey area when it comes to civil rights.

Same tired argument using misrepresentation. Oh well. At least you’ve learned that you can’t use Loving v Virginia in the dishonest manner you’ve been using it.

I’m bowing out of the thread and leaving it to the anti-Catholics. Hopefully, the SCOTUS won’t use the same faulty reasoning they did with Roe, so common sense will prevail for once.

 

[rlg94086]

With all due respect rig I was hoping for better than that.

1. Say to my gay friends that it’s disordered? That is only an opinion. No wonder the courts throw that out. If I ever get something good I would actually go to them and say it! No way I would run with “disordered”.
2. ‘Same sex civil unions are disordered and not good for society’. There is absolutely no evidence of this in the secular world. We’re 9 pages into this thread and nobody can show a study, article, or anything supporting that. No wonder the courts don’t buy it.
3. Children ARE better off in a typical home than not but then why do we allow single parents, divorced parents to have them? Being gay is just one element of the parent. It’s amazing that conservative Christians would rather see children stay in the foster system than be adopted by gay parents who will love them. It also contradicts conservative opinions that government should be smaller (govt pays for the foster system) and pro-life arguments which require significantly more adoptions.
4. Why we treat gays the way we do is unacceptable in a moral community. The Chaput called for us to speak out when moral issues are violated in society (capital punishment, gun control, rights of the poor, etc.). That is different than an individual who wants to find peace at church. With the individual, we do not know their story and therefore should not pass judgment on them. They have their own relationship with God to deal with. They are already well aware of our teachings. This is true whether it’s two gays guys holding hands when they enter church or that adulterous couple you mentioned. Our job is to walk with them on their spiritual journey not make their journey go where we think it should go.

As long as you dismiss Church teaching as “only an opinion,” you will come up short. If you can’t do that, can you at least recognize that male and female bodies are ordered by nature to unite? Even from a basic biology standpoint, a male-male or female-female union is abnormal. That said, I realize that no one accepts the obvious anymore.

Read and pray, my friend. I’m sorry I didn’t say anything compelling enough to help you. Eventually, you may get it.

 

[Befink]

Good night rig. Let’s not confuse anti-Catholics with people with fair questions. There’s a huge difference. There are no anti-Catholics here.

Also to clarify a point. Nowhere other than in conservative media do you see claims of people marrying animals, children, or inanimate objects if we allow gay marriage. In order for marriage to valid, it requires two human adults to consent. Inanimate objects can’t consent because they have no mind. Animals can’t consent because they don’t talk or have human free-will. Children can’t make adult decisions like marriage until 18 which is the definition used in all legal institutions.

I realize this potentially opens the door for polygamy. Realistically though this isn’t an issue as there are not nearly enough polygamists out there to start a movement. Vast majority of liberals are against that, let alone conservatives.

Therefore, there will never be a difference to what people understand marriage to be, other than the same gender element.

 

[rlg94086]

Good night rig. Let’s not confuse anti-Catholics with people with fair questions. There’s a huge difference. There are no anti-Catholics here.

Also to clarify a point. Nowhere other than in conservative media do you see claims of people marrying animals, children, or inanimate objects if we allow gay marriage. In order for marriage to valid, it requires two human adults to consent. Inanimate objects can’t consent because they have no mind. Animals can’t consent because they don’t talk or have human free-will. Children can’t make adult decisions like marriage until 18 which is the definition used in all legal institutions.

I realize this potentially opens the door for polygamy. Realistically though this isn’t an issue as there are not nearly enough polygamists out there to start a movement. Vast majority of liberals are against that, let alone conservatives.

Therefore, there will never be a difference to what people understand marriage to be, other than the same gender element.

Just a quick clarification. I wasn’t calling you an anti-Catholic. Don’t apply general statements to yourself.

Also, regarding polygamy, you, like most people, aren’t considering bisexuals. My brother married a bisexual woman who brought another woman into the relationship. There are plenty of willing polygamists out there, but most people just charicature the idea with fundamentalist Mormons. Blessings on your faith journey. You have a long way to go.

 

[Dawnia]

Procreation and child rearing have never been requirements of secular marriage in this country.

Civil rights are universally applicable until the State provides a compelling and demonstrable interest in their restriction and the judiciary reviews that restriction. The decision in Loving v. Virginia defined marriage as a civil right and therefore it cannot be restricted without any sort of due process in the form of strict scrutiny.

Marriage was deemed a civil right…gay marriage was not. You are trying to change what SCOTUS declared as a right. It specifically references reproduction in the opinion and is based on a prior opinion which explains the “right” more in depth. Marriage and family were a matched set when that opinion came down.

 

[Dawnia]

Of course its true. In reducing the institution of secular marriage to a matter of eggs and sperm you create an entirely new standard which must be universally applied in order to be a constitutional restriction. There is no grey area when it comes to civil rights.

That’s too funny. The law is all about grey area If law was black and white, lawyers and judges would be out of a job.

 

[hazmat]

its a civil right. its like giving people the right to marry anyone of a religion different from their own, when catholics only want to marry catholics. if some citizens have the right to marry catholics, then all citizens must have the same right to marry catholics, including catholics. thats civil rights; it doesnt matter if you write the discrimination into the laws themselves.