i'm glad amendment 2 passed in florida (banning same-sex marriage)

Whether it wins, as it probably will, the issue is by no means dead in California. This is just the beginning of a long, legal slog.

Emmeran wrote:

fnord wrote:

In spite of the American Constitution originally defining them as property and 3/5ths of a person, niggers see no problem with writing discrimination into a constitution.

I have trouble understanding the discrimination in this issue: please tell me what rights or priviledges are being repressed?

Taint - I'd be happy to work with you to start a movement to remove the CA government from the marriage business altogether and only support civil unions between consenting adults.  As long as you realize that I'm going to demand that polygamy be allowed also as we are currently discriminating agains the Islamics and Mormons by not allowing them to practice their religion beliefs.

My own career goals keep me too busy to pursue any political work, but I honestly don't care how many people anyone marries. I have several friends, straight and gay, involved in triads and polyamorous relationships - myself included. Ultimately, one's romantic entanglements are one's own business.

icangetyouatoe wrote:

If Britney Spears can get married, my dog should be able to get married.

Unfortunately, Prop 21 - which would have outlawed Britney Spears - failed by a 3-2 margin.

headkicker_girl wrote:

You risk having it taken away otherwise.

How dare we.

headkicker_girl wrote:

fnord wrote:

Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. Blacks voted strongly in favor of the ban…


In spite of the American Constitution originally defining them as property and 3/5ths of a person, niggers see no problem with writing discrimination into a constitution.

Some people don't have a problem with civil unions;  they have a problem with the word "marriage" because of the religious connotation.  My gay friends in Illinois would be happy with civil unions, which are not legal here.  I personally see it as a case of getting greedy.  If you have all the legal protections of marriage, why quibble over what it's called?  You risk having it taken away otherwise.

Well for one thing, there's a much bigger hill to climb legally in getting the right recognized across the country.  Getting a civil union is pretty much guaranteeing that your partnership will only be legally valid in California.

Also, Zookie, Obama was against Prop 8.  I'm assuming that you're just trolling, but in case anyone else really didn't know, I thought I'd point that out.

headkicker_girl wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

You risk having it taken away otherwise.

How dare we.

You can dare, but the consequences may not be to your liking.  You can't legislate acceptance, especially when it directly conflicts with long held religious beliefs.

But that's exactly the problem.  The proponents of Proposition 8 are the ones trying to legislate acceptance (or lack thereof).  Our constitution purposefully does NOT enumerate our rights.  What it does is outline the limits of what the government can do.  The whole idea is that people are allowed to do what they want, including shunning their neighbors, but when it comes to the government, it should treat all people equally.  Prop 8 is an attempt to keep the government from treating people equally because people don't agree with homosexual marriage by amending the constitution.

headkicker_girl wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

You risk having it taken away otherwise.

How dare we.

You can dare, but the consequences may not be to your liking.  You can't legislate acceptance, especially when it directly conflicts with long held religious beliefs.

Headkick, I think the election has worn you out.

You can legislate acceptance, but the process is arduous, painful, and not always succesful. But it has been done. At one time, it was perfectly reasonable to hold slaves and non-god knows, there are enough passages in the Bible to back up the claim that slavery is acceptable:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Although we have a black president, blacks aren't universally accepted.  Allowing gays to use the word "marriage" rather than "civil union" will not make them more accepted, any more than Obama will make Fnord accept having black neighbors. If you have the same rights already, the use of a specific word, in my opinion, is irrelevant, especially because so many other states don't even have civil unions.

Also, all kinds of discrimination is perfectly legal.  I don't have to hire fat people.  I don't have to hire short people.  If I'm Hooters, I don't have to hire male servers.  I can have a woman-only health club.  I can have ladies night or student discounts.  The Klan doesn't have to accept black members.

The world isn't fair.

Anyway, it'll wind its way up to the Supreme Court, and if it's the current court, I think it'll be a 5-4 decision upholding a state's right to define marriage.

Taint wrote:

I agree with your overall premise, Headkick, but it still doesn't address the issue of "separate but equal" as it's being applied with the use of civil unions.

This isn't a question of segregation.  "Separate but equal" doesn't apply here anymore than it does in the case of the prohibition against siblings marrying.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-11-06 00:40:19)

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

I agree with your overall premise, Headkick, but it still doesn't address the issue of "separate but equal" as it's being applied with the use of civil unions.

This isn't a question of segregation.  "Separate but equal" doesn't apply here anymore than it does in the case of the prohibition against siblings marrying.

Who's talking about segregation? It's the application of two separate sets of standards to two different people. You can have B but not A because we believe A is better and because we disagree with what you do/say/believe, you aren't entitled to the same set of standards.

And siblings? What the kind of fucking comparison is that?

Last edited by Taint (2008-11-06 02:59:02)

Sorry, siblings is a stupid and lazy comparison.

Secondly, separate but equal is a fair description and not inaccurate given the context.

Finally, you don't have to like faggots but your skin color does not make you morally superior.

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

This isn't a question of segregation.  "Separate but equal" doesn't apply here anymore than it does in the case of the prohibition against siblings marrying.

Who's talking about segregation?

That's the historical context of the concept you are invoking ("separate but equal").  It isn't a constitutional principal per-se.  It was invoked first as a solution for the fnords of the nation who didn't want to mix with blacks and then decried because it was claimed that "separate" was "inherently inequal" (something that isn't necessarily true but was in fact the case in the days of segregation).

Taint wrote:

It's the application of two separate sets of standards to two different people. You can have B but not A because we believe A is better and because we disagree with what you do/say/believe, you aren't entitled to the same set of standards.

Nope.  Not if civil unions afford all the same rights and privileges as marriage does.  It isn't a case of "we believe A is better".  It's a case of "A has historically been defined as involving a man and a woman and we aren't redefining it.  But since you want to have the same type of legal status as A we've put B on the books for you so that you can effectively have all the same things that A affords."

Taint wrote:

And siblings? What the kind of fucking comparison is that?

A valid one.

OMG, I agree with Zookeeper.

I have to go, but I just want to leave you with this:  the equal protection clause was not used to justify civil rights legislation.  Most civil rights legislation was passed under the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court will never apply the equal protection clause to gays because there is no precedent.  It isn't even applied to blacks.

Constitutional law is a convoluted mess, and not nearly as easy as the average person would like to think.

headkicker_girl wrote:

OMG, I agree with Zookeeper.

I have to go, but I just want to leave you with this:  the equal protection clause was not used to justify civil rights legislation.  Most civil rights legislation was passed under the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court will never apply the equal protection clause to gays because there is no precedent.  It isn't even applied to blacks.

Constitutional law is a convoluted mess, and not nearly as easy as the average person would like to think.

True, but the Equal Protection clause was used to strike down racist legislation.  Brown v. Board of Education sound familiar?  There is a precedent as long as homosexual sexual preference can be declared a suspect class, as it was in California.  There doesn't have to be a precedent that specifically has to do with sexual orientation.  You're still pretending that this is about gay people trying to legislate acceptance, but that's exactly backwards.

The sibling example is stupid and lazy because the prohibition on incest was made on the basis of harm to the children.

tojo2000 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

OMG, I agree with Zookeeper.

I have to go, but I just want to leave you with this:  the equal protection clause was not used to justify civil rights legislation.  Most civil rights legislation was passed under the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court will never apply the equal protection clause to gays because there is no precedent.  It isn't even applied to blacks.

Constitutional law is a convoluted mess, and not nearly as easy as the average person would like to think.

True, but the Equal Protection clause was used to strike down racist legislation.  Brown v. Board of Education sound familiar?  There is a precedent as long as homosexual sexual preference can be declared a suspect class, as it was in California.  There doesn't have to be a precedent that specifically has to do with sexual orientation.  You're still pretending that this is about gay people trying to legislate acceptance, but that's exactly backwards.

The sibling example is stupid and lazy because the prohibition on incest was made on the basis of harm to the children.

Surprisingly, wikipedia does an excellent job of going through the analysis on the equal protection clause.  It is relevant that it's never been applied to sexual orientation.  The Supreme Court is heavily into precedent and unless you have a judicially active court, which we don't, they will be unwilling to expand on the previous decisions.

Also, the sibling example was relevant because it falls under "compelling state interest."  Here's a good example.  In Ohio, Woody Allen could not have married Soon Yi if there was an actual stepfather-stepdaugther relationship.  The states are allowed to set the standard until it goes up to the supreme court.  It doesn't matter that in one state it different than other.  Age of consent laws is another example.  Why is it ok to diddle a 14 year old in one state and not another?  Why is it that first cousins can marry in some  states and not in others?

Anyway, I can guarantee you that if this law went up to the S. Ct. on equal protection grounds the gays would lose.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

The sibling example is stupid and lazy because the prohibition on incest was made on the basis of harm to the children.

If your agreement with such laws is due to the potential of siblings producing children with genetic defects, then I assume you are in favor of laws against adult siblings having sex whether married or not, right?  OK then, how about adult siblings getting married after one of them has opted for sterilization?  Would that make for an acceptable example?

Sure.  I don't personally have a problem with it being legal, even though it gives me the heebie jeebies.  I don't actually believe that it would be a big issue because people generally don't want to have sex with their siblings.

None of this, of course, changes anything about the fact that the two situations aren't analogous.

You have not demonstrated that the two are not analogous.  You said that it was "stupid and lazy"  (apparently meaning "non-analogous") because incest prohibitions are to protect the offspring.  Yet the prohibitions apply to family members who are not even blood relations (as HKG demonstrated) and would still be applied to a couple even if one of them was sterile.

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

If your agreement with such laws is due to the potential of siblings producing children with genetic defects, then I assume you are in favor of laws against adult siblings having sex whether married or not, right?  OK then, how about adult siblings getting married after one of them has opted for sterilization?  Would that make for an acceptable example?

Sure.  I don't personally have a problem with it being legal, even though it gives me the heebie jeebies.  I don't actually believe that it would be a big issue because people generally don't want to have sex with their siblings.

None of this, of course, changes anything about the fact that the two situations aren't analogous.

You have not demonstrated that the two are not analogous.  You said that it was "stupid and lazy"  (apparently meaning "non-analogous") because incest prohibitions are to protect the offspring.  Yet the prohibitions apply to family members who are not even blood relations (as HKG demonstrated) and would still be applied to a couple even if one of them was sterile.

It's stupid and lazy because you're just latching on to any prohibition of marriage and not taking into consideration the reasons for the prohibition.  I am not going to go and re-argue whether or not there should be the current laws with regards to prohibitions on incest.  In order to prohibit it, a compelling state interest was shown in that it was determined that someone was being harmed.  Nobody (well, a miniscule minority) is arguing that allowing same-sex partners to call their relationship a marriage provides a compelling state interest because it's harming someone.  They just don't want it to be accepted.

tojo2000 wrote:

In order to prohibit it, a compelling state interest was shown in that it was determined that someone was being harmed.  Nobody (well, a miniscule minority) is arguing that allowing same-sex partners to call their relationship a marriage provides a compelling state interest because it's harming someone.  They just don't want it to be accepted.

But why is it harmful in one state but not another?  If incest was truly harmful, all 50 states would have outlawed first cousin marriages and step-relative marriages.  As it stands, the law is ad hoc.  Why is it harmful to have sex with a 14-year-old girl in one state but not another?  And finally, how are gays being harmed by not being allowed to call a civil union a marriage?

The institution of marriage was founded by the church and ratified by the state.  The state only became involved because it wanted to dictate how property was acquired and passed down.  Marriage was created to be a bond between a man and woman in the eyes of God.  It was never intended to apply to same sex couples.  Equal protection doesn't apply just because people aren't treated the same.  They have to show that they are being harmed.  I'm not seeing the harm in California.

tojo2000 wrote:

We're talking about government denying marriage licenses to one group based on the gender of the couple.

I have to disagree, you can't lay this at the feet of government as an entity; this is a constitutional amendment not a state statute.  Ergo this is the greater society defining the rules of that society, so even if the Federal Supreme Court were to overturn society as a whole could amend the Federal Constitution if it so desired.

Emmeran wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Common sense simply doesn't apply to constitutional law.  It was one of the most frustrating classes that I've ever taken.

Here's a fun exercise:  A guy belongs to the Elks Lodge.  Although a private organization, the Lodge does have a state issued liquor license so that it can run a bar where it sells its members alcoholic beverage.  Dusty is a member of the lodge and being the liberal that he is, he brings Zookie, his black friend, to the bar for couple of frusty mugs of Lone Star.  Fnord, the bartender, refuses to serve Zookie on the ground that blacks aren't allowed in the club. 

What is the outcome and constitutional grounds?

I would assume (as a non-lawyer) that the club has to follow equal access under the merchandising clause, meaning if you want the likkor license you have to serve all.

I have to go to court, so I won't give the answer yet.  I'd still like to hear how a few more people view the scenario.

tojo2000 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

In order to prohibit it, a compelling state interest was shown in that it was determined that someone was being harmed.  Nobody (well, a miniscule minority) is arguing that allowing same-sex partners to call their relationship a marriage provides a compelling state interest because it's harming someone.  They just don't want it to be accepted.

But why is it harmful in one state but not another?  If incest was truly harmful, all 50 states would have outlawed first cousin marriages and step-relative marriages.  As it stands, the law is ad hoc.  Why is it harmful to have sex with a 14-year-old girl in one state but not another?  And finally, how are gays being harmed by not being allowed to call a civil union a marriage?

The institution of marriage was founded by the church and ratified by the state.  The state only became involved because it wanted to dictate how property was acquired and passed down.  Marriage was created to be a bond between a man and woman in the eyes of God.  It was never intended to apply to same sex couples.  Equal protection doesn't apply just because people aren't treated the same.  They have to show that they are being harmed.  I'm not seeing the harm in California.

Well, that's a nice little history lesson, but it's not actually true.  While the state does issue marriage licenses to people who have been married by a religion, there is no requirement that people get married by a religious institution in order to be issued a marriage license, and if the state had to confine its definition to the one you gave then only marriages ratified by a Christian God would be certified by the state.  Also, as a lawyer, surely you realize that what matters is whether or not the law applies, not whether or not the application of the law was envisioned by the author.

As to your question about the different applications of the law, I don't see what it is you don't understand about the difference between state laws and federal laws, but state laws get to be decided by each state, and federal laws get to be decided at the national level.  Thus, it is possible for different states to decide things like at what age they think it's legally okay for kids to engage in consensual sex.

Finally, you still have it backwards.  A suspect class doesn't have to show a compelling interest to receive equal protection under the law.  The state has to show that there is a compelling interest to treat them differently.  That's why there had to be a constitutional amendment to take the right to marry away.

1.  Regarding marriage, historical precedent does matter.  Most modern law came from British common law, and it's still referred to.  The state adapted marriage from the relgious institution.  It did not change the definition of marriage when it got in the business of performing marriages.  Had the states wanted to define marriage as between the same sex they would have done so.  The fact that sex isn't mentioned is evidence that at the time the laws were enacted they thought it preposterous that people of the same sex would want to marry.  Remember, people weren't openly gay until the 60s.

2.  Gays are not a suspect class.  Period.

3.  I'm bypassing state law because in the end it doesn't matter when state law says.  Ultimately it will be the S. Ct. that decides this issue.

Be back in a bit...

tojo2000 wrote:

We're talking about government denying marriage licenses to one group based on the gender of the couple.

No, we're talking about government denying marriage licenses to one group based on the fact that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.  Prop 8 simply affirms that definition.  The reason it was passed is because people were trying to change the definition to include something it never included previously.

tojo2000 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

2.  Gays are not a suspect class.  Period.

Yes they are, in California.  that's the whole reason why we needed a Constitutional amendment.  Did you really not know that?

Now when it comes time to bring it up at a Federal level then it would have to be determined again from scratch, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle.

How many times do I have to day it?  I don't care what state law says because any review will be under federal law, and under federal law gays are not a suspect class.

I'm at work and only get small chances to post right now, but I'll respond a bit.  I didn't realize that we were now talking exclusively about federal law, I'll tailor it a bit.