PDA

View Full Version : And the Gays Have It



Italian Jew
06-17-2008, 01:42 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457968.stm

Damn, I wanted to see some hot lesbian action... :crying:

20 Boners
06-17-2008, 02:29 AM
Eww... I believe this deserves a DO NOT WANT tag.

LegalSmash
06-17-2008, 09:34 AM
As for the picture of do not want, I like this one:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/7/78/DO_WANT.jpg/627px-DO_WANT.jpg

I'm angry at Cali, not because of what they did, but the manner in which they did. Legislation is supposed to establish laws, not judges making them up, by doing this, they leave thousands of persons who will go to the state, dump money, seek marriage, and it will only be held legal in CA. or Mass. There is no full faith and credit regarding marriage laws in the US under federal law. I feel as if Ca. is doing this as a ploy to unfuck their budget, and not in consideration of the underlying purpose. i think its going to end up dissapointing a lot of people that think this will have a different effect on their lives. The way this decision was made is actually a setback. Lastly, the Ca Court is overstepping their boundaries regarding the creation of law, this is a matter left up to the legislature... the creation of laws regarding marriage and probate, family law.

Again, I think that the manner in which this was done may have a deleterious effect upon the lives of the people who will rely on it to attempt to secure marriage rights in their home state.

Red
06-17-2008, 10:56 AM
Where is that Earthquake of 20 on the richter scale to separate that state from the rest of the country like in "Escape from LA"?

LegalSmash
06-17-2008, 04:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080617/us_time/fromgaymarriagesgroundzero;_ylt=AgBf3NAkGYvGL32wP9 M8esms0NUE

So it begins.

Repeat
06-17-2008, 04:37 PM
Mega-EWW at the old lady lesbians. I bet that's some old, nasssstaaay carpet.

Veggie
06-17-2008, 07:38 PM
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8959/omgdonotwantwu8.th.jpg (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=omgdonotwantwu8.jpg)

suricruise
06-17-2008, 08:52 PM
Mega-EWW at the old lady lesbians. I bet that's some old, nasssstaaay carpet.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

PotshotPolka
06-18-2008, 09:51 AM
Where is that Earthquake of 20 on the richter scale to separate that state from the rest of the country like in "Escape from LA"?

Lol... except take out the prisoners and add Gays. Take out the bad-ass guy who shot everybody atleast twice because they were holograms and add in Huckabee and rename it Escape From Rainbow Island. -A sequal to Escape From Minority Island.

Jack_Sparow
06-20-2008, 01:36 PM
:blink:

LegalSmash
06-20-2008, 04:40 PM
Again, from the point of view of an attorney, I think the state of CA is doing a great disservice to millions of gays here. MA. did it right, they legislated gay marriage legal... will of the people over will of the courts. Maybe CA's citizens DO want it, if they do, the legislature needs to pass the law, the court committed a breach of separation of powers, which could result in a LOT of pissed off "once married and now not" couples.

Italian Jew
06-20-2008, 04:51 PM
But isn't it up to the courts to decide if a law is constitutional or not?

LegalSmash
06-20-2008, 05:19 PM
judicial review is not the same as "making up new law", they didnt allow for a reasonable legislative measure to occur BY the legislature.

Italian Jew
06-20-2008, 05:52 PM
From what the news was stating, the state legislature tried to legalize same-sex marriages, but the Governator vetoed them both times and later said the courts should rule on the matter. The ruling was to determine that if the ban on same-sex marriage, which was voted for by the people of California in 2000, was constitutional. They are not making a new law, but saying that the ban was unconstitutional. The court stated

The state's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.
They are defining the terms of the law, not making a new one, which is what the judicial branch was designed to do.

LegalSmash
06-20-2008, 10:40 PM
From what the news was stating, the state legislature tried to legalize same-sex marriages, but the Governator vetoed them both times and later said the courts should rule on the matter. The ruling was to determine that if the ban on same-sex marriage, which was voted for by the people of California in 2000, was constitutional. They are not making a new law, but saying that the ban was unconstitutional. The court stated

They are defining the terms of the law, not making a new one, which is what the judicial branch was designed to do.


No. The governator is retarded, if he actually bothered to read the state constitution, he would know that asking them to do that is tantamount to asking them to devalue their decision making power by basically giving them a big fat L when they ARE over turned. He needs to brush up on his "Vaht I can und Cahnt do. The legislature must pass the law on their own, through a majority, or override veto if necessary. THAT is the scheme of things. The court shouldnt rule on it, because it presents a political question, moreover one that through proxy does a job for the legislature... where the federal government cannot "legislatively hijack" the state governments, the Governor cannot request that the courts do the same. The federal courts (and in many cases, state courts follow suit) do not allow for questions of a purely political nature to be answered, because no effect can be given to their ruling. Further, the will of people, through vote, passed law, or referendum is supposed to be taken into consideration, rather than railroaded. The people ARE allowed to prescribe their "local community standards" this is why some parts of the US you have "dry" counties, or places where no pornographic or sexually based establishments exist. The Court overstepped, and will very likely be overturned for it, which in essence will nullify those marriages (but I doubt CA will give back the fees for the licenses). According to the principles of federalism, which ARE enforced on ALL states, the court over stepped their jobs.

Again, I am not going to sit here and go "icky no way", despite that being my feelings as a roman catholic, straight man, as an attorney however, I see it as equal protection SHOULD cover where it is meant to, and if indeed the state of CA, like MA, wants to pass X or Y law permitting gay marriage, bestiality, incest, bigamy (Im lookin' at you, utah) or anything else, they SHOULD be able to. But, where the court is going to hot headedly commit an act of usurpation upon the legislature's traditionally defined roles, they are not helping anyone, because there IS going to be an appeal. At LEAST, they should require a residency requirement, as does Mass., so that the people can get validation of their "union/marriage" where they live ( in CA) rather than leave back to TN and get told STFU and GTFO. Currently, there is no duty to recognize said gay marriages from other states, and by not going through the traditionally kept, democratic channels that Mass did, they are seriously jeopardizing the people that are flocking over there to tie the knot mentally, emotionally, and financially.

They won't mention that though, because CA is balls to face in debt and these marriage licenses, hotel fees, taxes, etc are pumping some money into their otherwise desperate, overtaxed economy. Their budget is on the floor right now... this smells to me like a ploy to make some $, its as if it makes CA a gay tourist trap (more than it already is).

Again, I really think that there is a better way to do this, and CA courts are NOT helping ANYONE, gay, straight, etc. by doing this.

Italian Jew
06-20-2008, 11:39 PM
The court did not make any law though. They only struck down the ban from 2000, which they are allowed to do. There was no original law preventing same-sex marriage, so it would be allowed because it was not against the law. The ban made it illegal to be considered married and of the same sex. Since the law was only applied to California, the Californian court had jurisdiction over the matter. The ban prevented certain people from receiving the liberties Americans are supposed to have, which would seem to be very unconstitutional if this is the land of the free.

If people vote for something unconstitutional it is the duty of the court to review the law to make sure no rights are violated. This is why the courts are there in the first place, to determine if laws that are passed are constitutional or not. If people were allowed to have their local standards whenever they want, then some african americans would still be in chains or discriminated against. There are distinct limits to which local communities can decide things. They can decide things for themselves as long as it does not violated any law or right guaranteed by a higher power.

I do not see how a court hearing a case to decide the constitutionality of a law is bad. Arnold did the smart thing to do in the situation, which is to defer the question of constitutionality to the court (it is their job after all).

Basically, no law was created. It was only removed.

LegalSmash
06-20-2008, 11:52 PM
The ban prevented certain people from receiving the liberties Americans are supposed to have, which would seem to be very unconstitutional if this is the land of the free.

Like it or not, there currently is no federal right to gay marriage, only a state law that is passed according to legislative process can ADD to a constitution, that is the way amending works, and for that matter, how rights are created. Further unlike a racial divide, the exact same ends of marriage can be attained by good estate planning and will drafting. The court Crayola'd a law by striking down a law that represented the community standards of the state of CA as per the will of the rest of the state. It is tantamount to making a new law.

The rest of my posts, I reiterate.

It was a bad move. If CA is ready for gay marriage, pass legislation, amend the constitution, but don't do it this way, because it will fall through the procedure it failed to follow.

Dire
06-22-2008, 02:03 PM
I don't really see how this is such a big deal to everyone else. This is not going to affect your life, marriage or future marriage. Let the lesbos and gays get married - divorce rates are already way up there.

(By the way, I didn't read most of the posts made by Legal <3)

Dire
06-22-2008, 02:08 PM
Again, from the point of view of an attorney, I think the state of CA is doing a great disservice to millions of gays here. MA. did it right, they legislated gay marriage legal... will of the people over will of the courts. Maybe CA's citizens DO want it, if they do, the legislature needs to pass the law, the court committed a breach of separation of powers, which could result in a LOT of pissed off "once married and now not" couples.

I'm sure most of the people in CA are all for it. San Francisco is pretty much the gay capital of the United States. Gay parades, pride events, you name it. If you're gay Cali is where you want to be.

And this is no way saying that everyone in Cali is gay but I do know a few gay friends who live in Cali because of the gay communities there.

Dire
06-22-2008, 06:01 PM
Ahhh...I didn't read much up on it because it doesn't affect me at all. It's probably something a bit better than an 'civil union then.

Soviet1
06-22-2008, 06:56 PM
Mega-EWW at the old lady lesbians. I bet that's some old, nasssstaaay carpet.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Above quotes = Epic Truth.



I don't see why Gay marriage is getting banned. If I'm correct, this goes against the "Declaration of Independence" which states:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Gays cannot live their lives normally when they are being slandered against, They are being denied Liberty, and they cannot achieve happiness if they cannot be with the people they love.

Religion is the only reason its even an issue, but RELIGION CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH GOVERNMENT!!!! If I am correct, the last time Religion and Government were combined, all the pagans were put to death.

I despise the protesters who say that being Gay is a Sin. Being gay isn't a choice, thus how can It be a sin. Its an occurrence in your mind which causes you to be attracted to those of the same sex.

Banning gay marriage due to a bunch of angry Religious extremists goes against the Constitutional rights anyway. People in the US of A have the freedom of religion, thus, if gay marriage is banned due to the opinions of Christianity, it is saying that all other religions are wrong. An open assault against non-Christians. Even without that, banning gay marriage goes against the basic definition of "Freedom", which the US of A claims to give to its people.


Bah, excuse the fact that I tend to jump all over the place in my writing.


>.<

LegalSmash
06-22-2008, 07:15 PM
I'm sure most of the people in CA are all for it. San Francisco is pretty much the gay capital of the United States. Gay parades, pride events, you name it. If you're gay Cali is where you want to be.

And this is no way saying that everyone in Cali is gay but I do know a few gay friends who live in Cali because of the gay communities there.


Actually no, SF is just the most outspoken gay area, boston and DC also have a LOT of gays. Regardless, CA has a LOT more cities, towns, and viewpoints than one "all gay" pt. of view.

These people need to be represented as well, and allowed to define their community standards, and ultimately affect the legislative process.

LegalSmash
06-22-2008, 07:37 PM
Above quotes = Epic Truth.



I don't see why Gay marriage is getting banned. If I'm correct, this goes against the "Declaration of Independence" which states:




Gays cannot live their lives normally when they are being slandered against, They are being denied Liberty, and they cannot achieve happiness if they cannot be with the people they love.

Religion is the only reason its even an issue, but RELIGION CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH GOVERNMENT!!!! If I am correct, the last time Religion and Government were combined, all the pagans were put to death.

I despise the protesters who say that being Gay is a Sin. Being gay isn't a choice, thus how can It be a sin. Its an occurrence in your mind which causes you to be attracted to those of the same sex.

Banning gay marriage due to a bunch of angry Religious extremists goes against the Constitutional rights anyway. People in the US of A have the freedom of religion, thus, if gay marriage is banned due to the opinions of Christianity, it is saying that all other religions are wrong. An open assault against non-Christians. Even without that, banning gay marriage goes against the basic definition of "Freedom", which the US of A claims to give to its people.


Bah, excuse the fact that I tend to jump all over the place in my writing.


>.<


No one is slandering gay people, first, I am arguing that CA is going about it the wrong way by violating legislative process in order to hamstring their way on the people who should be able to vote upon the issue.

Second, no one has proven or unproven that it is a choice, you are no more qualified to claim they are or arent than any "religious extremist", as you put it.

Third, no one is combining religion with the government, but rather arguing "social order", there is a vast difference. Further, considering that much of Eu-rabia is so quick to bend over and take it from the entire Middle East and its largely uniform faith, none there can be in any position to say what faith should influence the government. Being that the U.S., like it or not, has had puritanical, protestant based underpinnings since inception, I hardly find it unbelievable that some Christians would have issues with behavior that is prohibited in their faith (and Islam, btw). The whole concept of "do not murder" is socially sound, as well as espoused by EVERY religion that has been around for over 100 years. Further, barring a few open minded jews, and episcopalians, there still remains the remaining majority of Christian, Jewish, Muslim groups that openly oppose, prohibit, and in some cases seek to punish gays.

It is royally annoying when people simply immediately retreat to "ITS CHRISTANITY FAULT YO...", mind you, in the mean time, London is turning into Londonistan, and France is raising a new Dome of the Rock. Christianity is the LEAST of homosexuals worries... Please research your statements... or, well, just open your mouth and let shit fall out like you did here.


Fourth, the Declaration you refer to mentions those rights are endowed by "our creator", who did you think they were talking about? Bill Gates? Its god... and the Christian one at that. To say that the US, or England for that matter, isn't thoroughly steeped in religious history is a retarded, unfounded, and badly researched statement.

Let me reiterate:

I am NOT against these folks having their rights granted, through proper constitutionally sound means. Once again, the state of CA Courts are putting MANY gay people that pay for licenses, seek marriage, etc. and return home to find out that their marriage is NOT held valid in other states.

The correct way to fix this problem is as follows:

1. CA groups get referendum voted on, giving the gay community the rights they seek in the state of CA if that is truly the will of the people, under constitutionally sound, legislatively generated law, NOT judge made crayola legal work.


The problem still exists however, that NO OTHER STATE can be forced to accept anything passed by CA or Mass., they are under no duty to grant full faith and credit, rendering a CA marriage in TN, DE, etc. a nullity.

Now, imagine the crushing loss these people will suffer to find out that they paid 1-5K to get to CA, file, marry, come back, to find out that its invalid outside of CA and MASS.

CA should just have a residency requirement,

Soviet1
06-22-2008, 07:50 PM
No one is slandering gay people, first, I am arguing that CA is going about it the wrong way by violating legislative process in order to hamstring their way on the people who should be able to vote upon the issue.

Second, no one has proven or unproven that it is a choice, you are no more qualified to claim they are or arent than any "religious extremist", as you put it.

Third, no one is combining religion with the government, but rather arguing "social order", there is a vast difference. Further, considering that much of Eu-rabia is so quick to bend over and take it from the entire Middle East and its largely uniform faith, none there can be in any position to say what faith should influence the government. Being that the U.S., like it or not, has had puritanical, protestant based underpinnings since inception, I hardly find it unbelievable that some Christians would have issues with behavior that is prohibited in their faith (and Islam, btw). The whole concept of "do not murder" is socially sound, as well as espoused by EVERY religion that has been around for over 100 years. Further, barring a few open minded jews, and episcopalians, there still remains the remaining majority of Christian, Jewish, Muslim groups that openly oppose, prohibit, and in some cases seek to punish gays.

It is royally annoying when people simply immediately retreat to "ITS CHRISTANITY FAULT YO...", mind you, in the mean time, London is turning into Londonistan, and France is raising a new Dome of the Rock. Christianity is the LEAST of homosexuals worries... Please research your statements... or, well, just open your mouth and let shit fall out like you did here.


Fourth, the Declaration you refer to mentions those rights are endowed by "our creator", who did you think they were talking about? Bill Gates? Its god... and the Christian one at that. To say that the US, or England for that matter, isn't thoroughly steeped in religious history is a retarded, unfounded, and badly researched statement.

Let me reiterate:

I am NOT against these folks having their rights granted, through proper constitutionally sound means. Once again, the state of CA Courts are putting MANY gay people that pay for licenses, seek marriage, etc. and return home to find out that their marriage is NOT held valid in other states.

The correct way to fix this problem is as follows:

1. CA groups get referendum voted on, giving the gay community the rights they seek in the state of CA if that is truly the will of the people, under constitutionally sound, legislatively generated law, NOT judge made crayola legal work.


The problem still exists however, that NO OTHER STATE can be forced to accept anything passed by CA or Mass., they are under no duty to grant full faith and credit, rendering a CA marriage in TN, DE, etc. a nullity.

Now, imagine the crushing loss these people will suffer to find out that they paid 1-5K to get to CA, file, marry, come back, to find out that its invalid outside of CA and MASS.

CA should just have a residency requirement,


I should have known better then to try and out legal-talk you :p

Sorry that I was so epically wrong.

LegalSmash
06-22-2008, 08:01 PM
LOL

its cool

Dracula
06-22-2008, 09:08 PM
If I ever need Legal help i know who to call.

Dire
06-22-2008, 09:13 PM
I don't feel like reading :(

Italian Jew
06-22-2008, 10:32 PM
New York has a policy of accepting gay marriages from other jurisdictions as well as some other states. The problem is if the couple comes from a state that has banned same-sex marriage. It would be up to the courts in the respective states to decide if they receive any marital rights or not (depending on the judge/judges). The states that have banned same-sex marriage know that they have to judge over these individual cases so they feel a little bit miffed at the moment.

Eventually this will all snowball and there will be a high chance that there might be a federal law or amendment allowing same-sex marriage unless the US turns mega conservative or religious over the next few years. It is going to take the same course of action as the end of segregation in the US, however it might be a bit humorous and influential to have an "I Have a Dream" speech delivered with a gay community theme. Having gay marriage is just the flavor of the generation. After them, who else will the US decide to mock, harass, and withhold certain freedoms?

Soviet1
06-22-2008, 10:49 PM
If I ever need Legal help i know who to call.

YOU HAVE THY NUMBER OF THE LEGALY SMASHING ONE????

LegalSmash
06-22-2008, 11:02 PM
New York has a policy of accepting gay marriages from other jurisdictions as well as some other states. The problem is if the couple comes from a state that has banned same-sex marriage. It would be up to the courts in the respective states to decide if they receive any marital rights or not (depending on the judge/judges). The states that have banned same-sex marriage know that they have to judge over these individual cases so they feel a little bit miffed at the moment.

Eventually this will all snowball and there will be a high chance that there might be a federal law or amendment allowing same-sex marriage unless the US turns mega conservative or religious over the next few years. It is going to take the same course of action as the end of segregation in the US, however it might be a bit humorous and influential to have an "I Have a Dream" speech delivered with a gay community theme. Having gay marriage is just the flavor of the generation. After them, who else will the US decide to mock, harass, and withhold certain freedoms?

"US states that recognize gay marriage:

California
On May 15, 2008, California's Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage in the state was discriminatory... (read more)

New Jersey*
New Jersey is the third U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions behind Vermont and Connecticut. The new same-sex civil unions law, which goes into affect on February 19, 2007, grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights as marriage. *(Although same-sex unions in New Jersey are classified as civil unions, couples are granted the same rights as married heterosexual couples.) read more

New York
Note: By a May 29, 2008 directive, New York only recognizes gay marriages from couples legally married outside of the state. read more

Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. The State of Massachusetts also issues licenses to gay couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage.
"
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm

4 of 50 hmm... yeah... that will pass a constitutional amendment alright. Almost 2/3 of the states right there....

I'm sorry, but realistically speaking here, Jew, we have nearly 1/2 the states that CONSTANTLY try to test abortion rights, and ACTIVELY try to end abortion, or force the issue into the high court in a very simple minded effort to abrogate Roe v. Wade... do you REALLY think that the same people, who, if it were left up to state legislature (and it SHOULD be left to proper constitutional legislative process, IMHO) won't let a heterosexual woman decide what to do with the results of a bad weekend at Bullwinkle's Saloon in tallahassee, are going to allow 2 men, women, "marry"?

I think part of the problem is that the word "marriage" as the united states, and western society knows it is a particularly religiously steeped right of passage. Its set, defined, and ministered according to various faiths. THAT is why so many people are so adamant about the issue, its not this simple minded, visceral hatred of all rainbows that you and many others seem to believe permeats anyone who goes to church on sunday. Its an honest disagreement with a nontraditional, and in many of their opinions, unnatural relations.

I'm not going to sit here and say that this activity should be prohibited forever more, but I am going to be unabashedly realistic, and the likelyhood of the rest of the 46 states, most of which are not very blue, suddenly switching opinions on an issue so fervently and bitterly fought over is ludicrous.

Again, CA can do this, if the people of CA want, but for Pete's sake, don't go off half cocked, get overturned, and end up screwing over hundreds.

Italian Jew
06-23-2008, 12:17 AM
Which is why I said in the future an amendment might be possible (eventually = some later time in most dictionaries I think). The issue is a gender issue, which are handled just as politically as racial issues. What those states that ban gay marriage cling to are old laws that are based on religious teachings or backwater ideologies. The US tends to get rid of the more stupid things as time progresses, however it does not have a perfect record at this.

For the record, the list forgets to mention New Mexico and Rhode Island. Same-sex marriages are recognized in those states as well as there is no current law in either that prevents it.



Isn't screwing over hundreds (if not thousands and millions) what the government does best? That's how the game is played and has been played for the better part of human existence.

LegalSmash
06-23-2008, 07:03 AM
Which is why I said in the future an amendment might be possible (eventually = some later time in most dictionaries I think). The issue is a gender issue, which are handled just as politically as racial issues. What those states that ban gay marriage cling to are old laws that are based on religious teachings or backwater ideologies. The US tends to get rid of the more stupid things as time progresses, however it does not have a perfect record at this.

For the record, the list forgets to mention New Mexico and Rhode Island. Same-sex marriages are recognized in those states as well as there is no current law in either that prevents it.



Isn't screwing over hundreds (if not thousands and millions) what the government does best? That's how the game is played and has been played for the better part of human existence.

Laws that dont affirmatively speak for something by no means imply that they are outright legal, until the issue is addressed affirmatively, its a gray issue..

Also homosexuality is not a gender issue. Gender = M and F, no other add ins, go get a biology book on that one, and the subject of gender and law is not dealt with as race, alienage, and naturalization in the US, those issues get what the supreme court calls "strict scrutiny" whereas gender only gets intermediate scrutiny... gay rights in this country are held above issues of retard/handicap/disabled rights and but far below issues of race, naturalization, fundamental rights and religion.

As for the "backwater ideology comments", I think that you are no different than misanthrope was/is. I find it funny that you will tongue-fuck a follower of Islam's ass regarding "understanding their way OMGZZZ GUISE!!!" but are so quick to call Christianity a backwater ideology.

Lastly, you should notice that ALL law, throughout history has decended from the initial moral codes created from the people's belief system, the original law WAS religion, and most current law is based on it... does this somehow surprise you?

Italian Jew
06-23-2008, 02:30 PM
Current law is based on things on religion that can be used in a secular sense.

I never said Christianity was a backwater ideology as I covered it in the "religious teachings" part. A backwater ideology is something like a southern family not respecting blacks because they think they are inferior based on what they were taught by their parents or society. Basically, saying you should not be equal because you are black, gay, female, etc. is a backwater ideology.

Also, you use the term "gender" incorrectly (much like the rest of the world when you switch the word out for "sex"). Sex is the term that involves biological characteristics about an organism, gender involves characteristics determined by society that are masculine or feminine. How about you go read a good biology book that doesn't misuse the term.

The issue involves the gender of the couple. If both are either masculine or feminine, why should they not have the same rights as a masculine+feminine couple? Society has seen that a man should marry a woman for much of history however, the fact remains that some people are uncomfortable with having a man act like a woman by wanting a man, and a woman acting like a man wanting a woman. Now I am not saying all lesbians dress like men or act like men, but the gender role of women is to want a man. By wanting a woman as a woman you are switching what may be the most important gender role thereby making this a very gender related issue (same applies for men).

Religion gets involved because the gender role of the woman is typically written specifically, so any religious person who seeks to respect the word of their respective religion would want to follow that role. Most of the time, the religion delegates the role of the woman to be completely feminine which, like I stated above, means that they should seek to be with a man. Switching the roles can be seen as telling the respective god or gods that they are not right and that people can do things their own way. This is typically the more popular complaint that is publicized in regards to gay marriage and can be considered the strongest argument against it, but it holds no secular purpose so it should not be used as any law. However, in regards to christianity, I think Jesus was more lenient towards women than the social norm allowed in some, but not all, instances. His example was lost in the reign of the church for the most part of two millenia. Wouldn't his example show that social norms are not written in stone and that they need to be changed from time to time? He was outside of the norm, so is being outside of the norm always bad?

The "backwater ideology" involving gay marriage is that gays are inferior to "normal" people. There has to be something biologically wrong with them because most people don't do it that way (although there are numerous examples in the animal kingdom where homosexuality is present). Even if one is not religious, they can complain that having a gay couple would be detrimental to society and destroy the nuclear family. However, there is no evidence to support that gay couples would subvert society and destroy everything we believe to be moral, whether it be secular morality or religious morality.

Is there any secular reason why gays should not marry?

If there is no valid reason, then any religious reasons cannot be used because the church does not control the state in this country. This means that eventually (hey, its that word again!:laugh:) gay marriage will be legal in this country because they are suffering the same barriers that minorities faced years ago. Slavery was approved of in the bible, but does the US condone slavery now? African americans were treated as subhuman half a century ago and beyond, but they live a lot better than they did presently. The feminine social role has improved as well. In the past women were not allowed to do anything of any real importance, but now you have women who have control over some of the aspects of our government.

I believe gays would be receiving more rights just as others have in the past, but it is going to take the same, if not more, amount of struggle to get there. Events such as the legalization of gay marriage in California and Massachusetts set the tone for future events. Legal, I know your view is that they should have rights, but the means of which in California were not in the standard or "right" way of doing things, but sometimes that's the only shit can get rolling in the US.


Lastly, Rhode Island is trying to pass legislation that allows gay-marriage in the state. New Mexico is trying to pass legislation that gives gay couples the same rights as married couples and they do not challenge any marriages done states that allow gay marriage. Gray area.....pshh

Well I think I covered all of what I wanted. If not I will annoy you more with walls of text. :thumbup:

LegalSmash
06-23-2008, 07:47 PM
I believe gays would be receiving more rights just as others have in the past, but it is going to take the same, if not more, amount of struggle to get there. Events such as the legalization of gay marriage in California and Massachusetts set the tone for future events. Legal, I know your view is that they should have rights, but the means of which in California were not in the standard or "right" way of doing things, but sometimes that's the only shit can get rolling in the US.


Oh, Lovely, lets just shred the constitution a little when it is convenient to an insular minority.

As for the rest, almost tl,dr, but I read anyways. Gender, as used in the Law, which is the term I follow, regards sex itself AND societal role, and again, you are bending the idea, and putting it in thumbscrews to suit your purpose. Gender/Sex/whatever you want to define it (call it carburetor why dont you) STILL only warrants intermediate scrutiny by the high court, and cannot be held to be on Par with race, nationality, or alienage.

Lastly, as to your invoking the black/slavery argument, here is a point you should consider: blacks HATE it when you compare gay issues to their issues, and rightly so, Jim Crow and lynchings is different from being told you have to draft your will (which everyone should do) rather than expect for kip and dave to be able to take by intestacy. THAT is the issue here.

Again, AFAIAC, do it right, according to the rules, or don't do something at all.

Italian Jew
06-23-2008, 09:20 PM
Oh, I be "bending" the idea to the true definition of the word. Oh noes I am evil!!!

OK, we'll pretend courts don't give a shit about the gender role in the issue as it is intermediate and means nothing will happen (but I am sure being intermediate still gives it some leeway). Marriage is considered a fundamental right is it not? Therefore, wouldn't gay marriage be viewed as strict in this context to tickle your fancy? However, DOMA does violate this fundamental right and the supreme court has declined to review it for some reason. Looks like it is going to take time even though gay marriage falls under both intermediate and strict scrutiny (lotta good that does).

I am sure you managed a poll of a substantial amount of blacks in the US to determine that they hate having their problems related to the problems gays have today. Also, the fact is that blacks suffered discrimination, as well as gays, but they suffered through mass slavery, which the gays did not. If the issue of homosexuality was brought up and was as popular as it is today back then, things may have been different. My point is that discrimination of gays has overtaken discrimination of blacks as the main social upheaval of our day. They suffer from the same things that blacks did in the early 20th century. Blacks have an advantage over them because the government has given them many fundamental rights. Gays do not have the right to marry each other which is an obvious violation of anyone's civil rights by telling them because you are different, you can't do this. I am confident that the government will see reason and grant them their basic rights within a few decades at the most.

The issue is that you have a majority of people who approved an unconstitutional law which was removed by the court. You are saying their wishes should be upheld even though the law was unconstitutional (although if you think it is constitutional, state your case). This was the same way of thinking as racists in the south during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A bunch of local whites thinking that blacks should be discriminated against because they wanted it. Did the government overstep its bounds by integrating the country and trying to prevent discrimination and preserve the basic rights of blacks? The government's job, whether it be a state or federal government, is to watch over the people and prevent them from making stupid mistakes.

As for how this was all done incorrectly, I think it was done more correctly than you think. Everything was done according to the rules. Proposition 22 was the law enacted by the people in 2000, but there was a question of whether the ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. The state legislature tried to allow same-sex marriage through law twice, but was vetoed by Arnold twice. On the second try, he wrote in the veto that the Supreme Court of CA should finish its decision on the matter of constitutionality of Proposition 22, which was an on going case since 2000 that went up through the courts through the years. All he did was state that he vetoed the new bill and that he would wait for the court to form a ruling on the on going case to decide on not his stance, but the constitutional stance in regards to the law. The court did its job by calling it unconstitutional, which means that the unconstitutional gay marriage ban is stricken from state law, thereby making it completely legal to have a gay marriage. Arnold later went on to state that he would uphold the ruling and would oppose any constitutional amendment that would try to ban gay marriage. Where did anyone overstep their bounds? They did everything correctly and because it was the constitutional thing to do. I do not hear any complaints about how they did anything incorrectly besides from you. If they did, I am sure some more prestigious figure other than yourself would announce so on some media outlet.

LegalSmash
06-24-2008, 12:07 AM
Oh, I be "bending" the idea to the true definition of the word. Oh noes I am evil!!!

OK, we'll pretend courts don't give a shit about the gender role in the issue as it is intermediate and means nothing will happen (but I am sure being intermediate still gives it some leeway). Marriage is considered a fundamental right is it not? Therefore, wouldn't gay marriage be viewed as strict in this context to tickle your fancy? However, DOMA does violate this fundamental right and the supreme court has declined to review it for some reason. Looks like it is going to take time even though gay marriage falls under both intermediate and strict scrutiny (lotta good that does).

I am sure you managed a poll of a substantial amount of blacks in the US to determine that they hate having their problems related to the problems gays have today. Also, the fact is that blacks suffered discrimination, as well as gays, but they suffered through mass slavery, which the gays did not. If the issue of homosexuality was brought up and was as popular as it is today back then, things may have been different. My point is that discrimination of gays has overtaken discrimination of blacks as the main social upheaval of our day. They suffer from the same things that blacks did in the early 20th century. Blacks have an advantage over them because the government has given them many fundamental rights. Gays do not have the right to marry each other which is an obvious violation of anyone's civil rights by telling them because you are different, you can't do this. I am confident that the government will see reason and grant them their basic rights within a few decades at the most.

The issue is that you have a majority of people who approved an unconstitutional law which was removed by the court. You are saying their wishes should be upheld even though the law was unconstitutional (although if you think it is constitutional, state your case). This was the same way of thinking as racists in the south during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A bunch of local whites thinking that blacks should be discriminated against because they wanted it. Did the government overstep its bounds by integrating the country and trying to prevent discrimination and preserve the basic rights of blacks? The government's job, whether it be a state or federal government, is to watch over the people and prevent them from making stupid mistakes.

As for how this was all done incorrectly, I think it was done more correctly than you think. Everything was done according to the rules. Proposition 22 was the law enacted by the people in 2000, but there was a question of whether the ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. The state legislature tried to allow same-sex marriage through law twice, but was vetoed by Arnold twice. On the second try, he wrote in the veto that the Supreme Court of CA should finish its decision on the matter of constitutionality of Proposition 22, which was an on going case since 2000 that went up through the courts through the years. All he did was state that he vetoed the new bill and that he would wait for the court to form a ruling on the on going case to decide on not his stance, but the constitutional stance in regards to the law. The court did its job by calling it unconstitutional, which means that the unconstitutional gay marriage ban is stricken from state law, thereby making it completely legal to have a gay marriage. Arnold later went on to state that he would uphold the ruling and would oppose any constitutional amendment that would try to ban gay marriage. Where did anyone overstep their bounds? They did everything correctly and because it was the constitutional thing to do. I do not hear any complaints about how they did anything incorrectly besides from you. If they did, I am sure some more prestigious figure other than yourself would announce so on some media outlet.

ROFL. Go tell that to a group of black college students at your school, see what they say to you. I've gone through an HBCU, I know this first hand, sit through a constitutional law class where the majority of students are black and hear what is said when the two perspectives are compared so flippantly. Its not a pretty sight. It is rather disrespectful to entertain the idea as well, blacks were lynched, legislatively removed from society through laws, and despite having been granted constitutional rights, were through various means restricted in their exercise. Blacks dont get the choice to wear their "black" on their sleeve... its there. Homosexuals do not have this issue. They are regular looking people, so in essence, we are talking about race versus social behavior.

Guess what? social behavior is something that can be legislated against, whether you want to hear it or not. You cant fuck your sister legally due to social and moral code. These are the same codes that have gotten us through the past 2000 years as a civilization. I can completely understand why people cling to their beliefs and social structures here.

Further, until there is concrete scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is not a choice, nor simply socialization, but a condition of the nature of foreign birth, or in the case of blacks, a physically discernible, different race, a patently noticeable characteristic, it wont be treated as the same.

Until homosexuality is considered such an immutable characteristic as race, or a status as not born in the US, the courts, nor the government will recognize it as the same.

Further, until the right of marriage is "recognized" by the federal govt to fall on homosexuals, no other state is required to recognize it. This is the full faith and credit clause in effect.

Look, I'll agree that SOME states, and by some, I mean few, if any, will jump on this colorful daisy train, but it is highly unlikely that EITHER party at national level is prepared to commit complete political suicide by endorsing an amendment, ruling, legislation, or change, because like it or not, it is still an unwelcome idea to the majority of the voting public.

Ill get more on this later. Bar calls

Italian Jew
06-24-2008, 02:53 AM
good luck on the bar

now lets go back to pretending we are at each others throats...

Some social codes need to go out of the window. I know you grow tired of me using african americans as an example, so I will switch it up for you. A couple hundred years ago women could not be accepted as equals both socially or academically. After a while we began to realize women had the same, if not more, academic ability than men do and were much better at certain tasks as well. Today, women have a lot more respect in society and are treated more equal and have more rights than hundreds of years ago. Gays have become the media hog of our time because many come out of the closet so to speak in this day and age. Hundreds of years ago you could be killed if you were homosexual, let alone different in any other way.

Being gay does not mean you are of a different race or anything, and for some it can be a choice, but it does have biological roots. It is both a nature and nurture issue. There is no "gay" gene, but people can have greater chances at becoming homosexuals than others due to hormonal/chemical imbalances or genetic mutations. There is no concrete evidence as we lack the tools or the locations to look for reasons why, but the examples above do correlate to instances of homosexuality. This means we have not found something that will definitely make you homosexual, but it helps if you have more female hormones in a male body or vice versa.

There has been observations of homosexual behavior in over a thousand species of animals and well documented cases in several hundred animals. Many of the observations can be attributed to a sort of male dominance or brotherhood, but in many others involve animals choosing one partner of the same sex (also, most are classified as being bisexual, but others are full on homosexual). This points to a biological link to homosexuality that could be related to humans. Now none of this is any concrete evidence that states homosexuality is purely biological, which I can understand means you aren't going to jump ship over a few theories or things of the such, but it does show that there may be something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-53877996.html
(I don't know if you can read the article or find it elsewhere. I have an account through my college for it and it is cited in the wiki page above)


Any chance for gays to have equal rights would have to be based on somebody's interpretation of the constitution and you and I both know that means, in this case, the interpretation could be in either direction. However, this does not make it a toss up in either direction because of the evolution of society and the ability for change. Americans are becoming a more accepting people for the most part as time goes on and history would side with gays eventually getting rights. Also, even if an interpretation of the constitution did not validate gay rights, the law itself can be changed, and because of reasons above, it will change. I know people cling to moral codes from thousands of years ago, but those codes do change. Do christians seek to burn heretics or muslims because they are different? Is it alright to invade your neighbor because you are stronger? Are the middle eastern countries still the centers of education? Christians are a bit nicer, nations tend to stay away from wars of conquest, and many middle eastern nations try to prevent "too much" education.

The way people see the world changes every day, however it is the big things that take time. Sooner or later, gays will be as equal as you and me and we will all be wondering why another different people are the way they are, or we may be the ones mocking them and preventing their equality. Just gotta wait it out. Time always catches up.





Long story short...I agree that NOW gays will not have equal rights, but in the future, whether it be near or far, they will have them.

IF ANYONE BESIDES LEGAL OR MYSELF HAS ANY SAY ON THE MATTER, SPEAK UP! I am tired of constantly seeing a Legal/Italian Jew pattern in this thread (and others as well). I hope we aren't scaring them away. :001_unsure:

LegalSmash
06-24-2008, 05:49 PM
"
IF ANYONE BESIDES LEGAL OR MYSELF HAS ANY SAY ON THE MATTER, SPEAK UP! I am tired of constantly seeing a Legal/Italian Jew pattern in this thread (and others as well). I hope we aren't scaring them away. "

Indeed. I feel as if its one of two things.

We are either too passionate about issues outside of gaming and this forum is a semi-stopgap whilst the main purpose is for rote entertainment between CS
OR
everyone is in awe as we continue our clash of the titans style battles.

LOL.

One of the two.

and for the Lulz, women are the WORST example jew....

Remember:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Womans_personality.gif
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b3/Backtothekitchen2.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/6e/Lolwoman.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8b/Women.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/0d/Beatthebitch.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/2/2f/Pussyfoodcorollary.jpg/800px-Pussyfoodcorollary.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ed/Sammich.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e6/Lazy_bitch.jpg

Italian Jew
06-24-2008, 06:06 PM
lol, touché...