946 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

Colbert Destroys R.I. Governor For Denying Gay Couples Death Rights

http://www.huffingto...r_n_360313.html

[Mr. Roboto]

Proposition 8: Who gave in the gay marriage battle?

(You can look up the names and how much, pretty crazy.)

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/

[freedom78]

A big victory for proponents of equality today.

Unfortunately, some had their criticisms:

"This is a most unfortunate decision. I had hopes that the Court would have had the wisdom and the judgment to have allowed this vital and deep-rooted matter and,
incidentally, one of the most basic problems, not only of our generation but of past
generations, to have been settled and decided by the people themselves…As I see it, in any problem as grave and important as this, no man or set of men in a position, high or low, can take it upon themselves to tell or instruct the people as to how they should lead and conduct their lives." --- Kentucky State Senator Frank Chief

Wait a minute...whoops. No, that wasn't about gay marriage...it was a quote against the decision made in Brown v. Board. It get so confusing. We used to hate brown people, now it's gays, but the arguments really don't change. How silly of me. Here are the real quotes:

"(The ruling has) almost left me speechless ... This has now become a national case. Using the courts to inject this radical social policy solves nothing and it only inflames the political passion of people and so I think this is far from over ... That they would find a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution is just absurd." --- Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

"Today's wrongful court decision is another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels." --- Senator Jim DeMint (R - SC)

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction." --- Randy Thompson of anti-gay website savecalifornia(dot)com

Doesn't this get fucking confusing? I mean, when voters vote for people who want universal healthcare, then it's a socialist agenda. So presumably voters are bad. But when the voters are overruled, then it's the anti-democracy forces of liberal fag loving activist judges.

One could see how these flips are tough to follow.

Seriously, all sarcasm aside, these fucking idiots know far too little of the Constitution they claim to be defending. The idea that voters have the power to strip you of your civil rights is beyond absurd. Were that the case, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and bans on interracial marriage (about which the arguments were STUNNINGLY similar). This case isn't about "marriage". It's about equal protection and due process.

The Constitution reads thusly:

5th Amendment: No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Marriage is a liberty given to adults (and some minors) by state governments. While some will make an argument that this is then a state issue. That's absolutely correct....until 1868 when the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, thus ensuring that our liberties could not be trampled by STATE governments. For those interested in the 14th Amendment, it reads as such

14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Or, to sum up, suck it anti-gay bigots.

[Blue Cut]

I never got it how the other guy in a gay couple is always the bottom. I thought they'd take turns or something, but I asked a friend of mine how it is while we were having a few beers. In his relationship his boyfriend is ALWAYS the bottom. He's the driller.

[*D*]

I'm not trying to be funny, seriously, do u think some gay dudes somewhere are pissed? there has to be gay guys like straight men who don't wanna marry and have had the perfect excuse.. well, honey, if we were allowed, u know id marry u. and now.. they are like NOWAYYYY Fuck!! Are U Serious?

[LISA]

life is short..you love who you love...it doesn't fucking matter ...and if you love someone and committed to that someone, you should have the same privialge of a legal marriage.done. I have 2 good friends I grew up with, one a chick and one a dude..both are in committed same sex realtionships and both are legally married here in Ontario..they have been together longer then any other couple I have ever known..

[PERM BANNED]

Freedom, I agree with what you're saying, though I don't know if gay marriage can be defined as a right. Government claims to have a role in marriage because marriage traditionally leads to offspring and all the inherent protections and services granted through that. In some states marriage isn't even legal until it is consummated. Some states have different ages in which one can marry. Some states prohibit marriage between individuals within certain proximity of genetic similarity. Point being is that marriage is anything but universal. There is a case in Texas now where a lesbian couple is filing for a divorce and the state won't grant them this because they can't issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple, therefore they are unable to issue a divorce. In another issue where universal reciprocity exists, each state has different criteria on how they'll issue driver's licenses. The issue can be even more complex when one compares a supposed universal right to marriage to the second amendment. Even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states (and has been agreed by the courts) an individual right to own firearms, states differ on what types of firearms you may possess and how you may go about obtaining them. There is quite the anecdotal evidence to suggest that each state can recognize a right, but in a different way. I'm personally not convinced that the right to marriage is inherent in the constitution. I've done a brief scan trying to find a SC case defining marriage as a right and came up empty. What exist are SC cases finding unique rules on marriage in conflict with the 14th amendment. Again, nothing explicitly stating the right to marry. As a libertarian I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. As a Libertarian I also don't believe that government should have any involvement in recognizing marriage - be it gay or straight. Though my opinion is obviously in the minority on this. I think it was a mistake to take this to court. Though I support the judiciary's ability to nullify laws incompatible with the constitution, such power should be sparingly used. Defining judicial activism and upholding the constitution is a fine line: Especially when the court overrules an amendment to a state constitution and not just a law or statute. I believe forcing this case to the SC is a dangerous gamble. I don't know if this is something that will go 5-4 and I hope it does not. Either way, I'd like to see the court hold to its constitutional principles (whatever they may objectively be in this matter) rather than the members aligning to political parties they have no official allegiance too. Being that the court has a 5-4 conservative slant right now; this may not bode well for gay marriage advocates. It has the potential to reverse all progress they have made and return them to where they began 30 years ago. I'm sure in time the case could be brought to the court again, but you're assuming 50 years before new justices would reject a previous ruling and abandon stare decisis to rule in their favor. A risky gamble and one I believe taken in error. Their best bet would have been to wait it out and allow the states to evolve and allow gay marriage through the legislator as is slowly happening across America. Waiting 20 years for a majority acceptance with sporadic marriage states in the interim is a hell of allot better than going 50+ with nothing in hopes a new court takes their case and has a different view.

[freedom78]

Quick response to Flagg, as I have little time: I would agree 100% that marriage is NOT a right (at least not a spelled out, Constitutionally protected one). It's no more a right than, say, driving a car. That's not the problem. The problem is treating people differently in allowing some a privilege and denying it to others. We wouldn't deny the privilege to drive to gays, or racial groups, or one sex but not the other. It would be rightly decried as an unequal application of the law, much as laws banning homosexual activities been overturned as violating equal protection. We absolutely overuse the word "right" in this country. Few things are rights. Many are privileges. The question is whether you can deny a privilege to a group on the basis of color/sex/sexuality/age, etc. Usually, the answer is "No". RE: the court...Kennedy voted for overturning the sodomy laws as UnConstitutional, so he's not a lock to vote in an anti-gay fashion.

[PERM BANNED]

I don't think this has anything to do with being anti-gay - at least from the judicial perspective. I absolutely agree with the Texas v. Bower decision. No brainer in that one. However, if we establish that marriage is in fact a privilege in lieu of a right, than the states are able to apply that privilege as they see fit as deemed by the 10th amendment. As long as they apply that law equally to their citizens, meaning age, race and gender are not affected, then they are not in violation of the equal protection clause. Legally they can say that marriage is strictly between members of the opposite sex and so long as this is applied universally, there is no basis for discrimination. Considering that in California they passed a constitutional amendment establishing this distinction, no one in the state can claim their rights are violated so long as the SCOTUS doesn't establish marriage as a fundamental right. Add that DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional and you have quite a legal wiggle room to overrule the 9th Circuit's ruling. I actually think that would be quite interesting if they ruled that it is not under federal jurisdiction enforce marriage laws. This would allow each state to establish its own guidelines on marriage. I would hope that this would lead to a complete repeal on marriage as an official institution. How adults conduct their personal relationships is of no concern to the government so long as they don't harm anyone in their behavior. Not that I oppose monogamy in anyway; quite the opposite. But I don't believe someone should gain half of someone's property because they engaged in an affair with another person. And above all else, I don't believe people should receive special treatment because they choose to get married. If remove the benefits that attract many people into sham marriages, then we might be able to restore the so called "sanctity" so many talk about.

[freedom78]

By "anti-gay" I simply meant taking the side opposite of gay rights...not "I hate gays and, thus, am voting against them". They could certainly rule that there is not federal jurisdiction. However, that would mean that DOMA IS unConstitutional, meaning that gay marriages performed in some states would have to be given full faith and credit in other states, much as traditional marriages are today. It doesn't mean that Utah has to perform gay marriages, but they'd still have to recognize those performed in other states. And that, in a sense, means that gay marriage is legal, albeit difficult for those who'd have to travel. Then some state would set itself up first as a "destination wedding" spot for gays to reap the financial benefits of a boost to tourism. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have ONLY civil unions. Marriage is a traditionally religious activity. The state could perform civil unions for all consenting adults. Religious institutions could perform marriages that are also state civil unions. That's essentially what we're doing now, if gays can marry but most churches refuse to marry them.

[LISA]

in some respects I agree with you |Randall.... but despite all said... love is ina person...regardless of the sex/race etc/// as you say, perhaps not a right but it should be a free choice..granted by the government... Freedom...yous' a frreak hun and I lubs ya

[freedom78]

Freedom...yous' a frreak hun and I lubs ya

Not in a gay way, I hope.

[PERM BANNED]

By "anti-gay" I simply meant taking the side opposite of gay rights...not "I hate gays and, thus, am voting against them".

They could certainly rule that there is not federal jurisdiction. However, that would mean that DOMA IS unConstitutional, meaning that gay marriages performed in some states would have to be given full faith and credit in other states, much as traditional marriages are today. It doesn't mean that Utah has to perform gay marriages, but they'd still have to recognize those performed in other states. And that, in a sense, means that gay marriage is legal, albeit difficult for those who'd have to travel. Then some state would set itself up first as a "destination wedding" spot for gays to reap the financial benefits of a boost to tourism.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have ONLY civil unions. Marriage is a traditionally religious activity. The state could perform civil unions for all consenting adults. Religious institutions could perform marriages that are also state civil unions. That's essentially what we're doing now, if gays can marry but most churches refuse to marry them.

Why would marriages in one state have to be honored in another? Is there a court case that establishes this unique status only to marriage licenses? If marriage is declared a privledge and granted via a license (as it presently is), there is no requirement for states to recognize all licenses from other states. Nursing licenses, licenses to practice law, concealed carry licenses and hunting licenses are all privledges under unqiue rules of each state and special reciprocity exists to recognize them if any reciprocity exists at all.

The SCOTUS stating that marriage is not a right by default reverts marriage authority back to the states and each state will be able to issue marriage licenses and recognize them in a manner they see fit. There are many reasons why this is a good idea, especially if states continue to grant special privledges to those deemed married. What's to stop someone from selling marriage in a polygamy recognizing state so that they may be afforded employer provided healthcare (let's assume they're a govt employee or tenured professor where job security is all but absolute) or other benefits (such as citizenship) in the state where they actually reside?

Mandating recognition is a defacto declaration of right and would be in contrast to a hypothetical ruling where it is deemed not so.

[freedom78]

By "anti-gay" I simply meant taking the side opposite of gay rights...not "I hate gays and, thus, am voting against them".

They could certainly rule that there is not federal jurisdiction. However, that would mean that DOMA IS unConstitutional, meaning that gay marriages performed in some states would have to be given full faith and credit in other states, much as traditional marriages are today. It doesn't mean that Utah has to perform gay marriages, but they'd still have to recognize those performed in other states. And that, in a sense, means that gay marriage is legal, albeit difficult for those who'd have to travel. Then some state would set itself up first as a "destination wedding" spot for gays to reap the financial benefits of a boost to tourism.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have ONLY civil unions. Marriage is a traditionally religious activity. The state could perform civil unions for all consenting adults. Religious institutions could perform marriages that are also state civil unions. That's essentially what we're doing now, if gays can marry but most churches refuse to marry them.

Why would marriages in one state have to be honored in another? Is there a court case that establishes this unique status only to marriage licenses? If marriage is declared a privledge and granted via a license (as it presently is), there is no requirement for states to recognize all licenses from other states. Nursing licenses, licenses to practice law, concealed carry licenses and hunting licenses are all privledges under unqiue rules of each state and special reciprocity exists to recognize them if any reciprocity exists at all.

The SCOTUS stating that marriage is not a right by default reverts marriage authority back to the states and each state will be able to issue marriage licenses and recognize them in a manner they see fit. There are many reasons why this is a good idea, especially if states continue to grant special privledges to those deemed married. What's to stop someone from selling marriage in a polygamy recognizing state so that they may be afforded employer provided healthcare (let's assume they're a govt employee or tenured professor where job security is all but absolute) or other benefits (such as citizenship) in the state where they actually reside?

Mandating recognition is a defacto declaration of right and would be in contrast to a hypothetical ruling where it is deemed not so.

Mandating recognition would likely be a part of a later case, IF the court took the "there's no federal authority here" (which they may not do). Some things are given full faith and credit; others are not. It varies quite a bit. Things like drivers licenses are. Presumably, it would be silly to require you to get a new license in every state on a cross country trip. Also, given that driving is largely the same everywhere, this makes sense. While the speed limits may be different the fact that there IS a speed limit, that it's posted in a fairly uniform fashion nationwide, and what not don't vary much. While marriage hasn't been ruled on with regard to full faith and credit, it certainly falls under the de facto application of that clause in that I don't have to get remarried if I move out of state, if I cheat on my spouse out of state (yes, even in Vegas) it may be part of divorce proceedings, etc. We give full faith and credit to marriage, even if courts haven't ruled on it. That doesn't make marriage a right any more than driving a car is a right. And it doesn't have to be. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a privilege.

Further, since court decisions made by state courts in one state must be upheld by other states (this is based on a SCOTUS application of FF&C), that would mean that, as some states' anti-gay marriage statutes are overturned by their courts (as has happened in many states), and those states begin to perform gay marriages, other states are obligated to recognize them. By definition, then, DOMA, which tries to circumvent this by saying that states need not give full faith and credit to out of state gay marriages, is unConstitutional.

None of this is to say that a right OR privilege must be universal in its application. Rights are denied through due process. Privileges can be denied for rational purposes (in most cases) or with a compelling state interest (in others). We deny the right to polygamy on the basis of a compelling interest. Same with marrying children under certain ages (again, varies by states). As we seek to deny marriage to homosexuals, what then is either the rational basis or compelling interest in doing so? THAT is the question that needs to be adequately answered in order to legitimately claim that bans on gay marriage (while still allowing hetero marriage) are Constitutional and not a violation of equal protection.

[PERM BANNED]

By "anti-gay" I simply meant taking the side opposite of gay rights...not "I hate gays and, thus, am voting against them".

They could certainly rule that there is not federal jurisdiction. However, that would mean that DOMA IS unConstitutional, meaning that gay marriages performed in some states would have to be given full faith and credit in other states, much as traditional marriages are today. It doesn't mean that Utah has to perform gay marriages, but they'd still have to recognize those performed in other states. And that, in a sense, means that gay marriage is legal, albeit difficult for those who'd have to travel. Then some state would set itself up first as a "destination wedding" spot for gays to reap the financial benefits of a boost to tourism.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have ONLY civil unions. Marriage is a traditionally religious activity. The state could perform civil unions for all consenting adults. Religious institutions could perform marriages that are also state civil unions. That's essentially what we're doing now, if gays can marry but most churches refuse to marry them.

Why would marriages in one state have to be honored in another? Is there a court case that establishes this unique status only to marriage licenses? If marriage is declared a privledge and granted via a license (as it presently is), there is no requirement for states to recognize all licenses from other states. Nursing licenses, licenses to practice law, concealed carry licenses and hunting licenses are all privledges under unqiue rules of each state and special reciprocity exists to recognize them if any reciprocity exists at all.

The SCOTUS stating that marriage is not a right by default reverts marriage authority back to the states and each state will be able to issue marriage licenses and recognize them in a manner they see fit. There are many reasons why this is a good idea, especially if states continue to grant special privledges to those deemed married. What's to stop someone from selling marriage in a polygamy recognizing state so that they may be afforded employer provided healthcare (let's assume they're a govt employee or tenured professor where job security is all but absolute) or other benefits (such as citizenship) in the state where they actually reside?

Mandating recognition is a defacto declaration of right and would be in contrast to a hypothetical ruling where it is deemed not so.

Mandating recognition would likely be a part of a later case, IF the court took the "there's no federal authority here" (which they may not do). Some things are given full faith and credit; others are not. It varies quite a bit. Things like drivers licenses are. Presumably, it would be silly to require you to get a new license in every state on a cross country trip. Also, given that driving is largely the same everywhere, this makes sense. While the speed limits may be different the fact that there IS a speed limit, that it's posted in a fairly uniform fashion nationwide, and what not don't vary much. While marriage hasn't been ruled on with regard to full faith and credit, it certainly falls under the de facto application of that clause in that I don't have to get remarried if I move out of state, if I cheat on my spouse out of state (yes, even in Vegas) it may be part of divorce proceedings, etc. We give full faith and credit to marriage, even if courts haven't ruled on it. That doesn't make marriage a right any more than driving a car is a right. And it doesn't have to be. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a privilege.

Further, since court decisions made by state courts in one state must be upheld by other states (this is based on a SCOTUS application of FF&C), that would mean that, as some states' anti-gay marriage statutes are overturned by their courts (as has happened in many states), and those states begin to perform gay marriages, other states are obligated to recognize them. By definition, then, DOMA, which tries to circumvent this by saying that states need not give full faith and credit to out of state gay marriages, is unConstitutional.

None of this is to say that a right OR privilege must be universal in its application. Rights are denied through due process. Privileges can be denied for rational purposes (in most cases) or with a compelling state interest (in others). We deny the right to polygamy on the basis of a compelling interest. Same with marrying children under certain ages (again, varies by states). As we seek to deny marriage to homosexuals, what then is either the rational basis or compelling interest in doing so? THAT is the question that needs to be adequately answered in order to legitimately claim that bans on gay marriage (while still allowing hetero marriage) are Constitutional and not a violation of equal protection.

Well that leaves it up to each state to determine if there is a valid interest in denying homosexuals marriage. What defines a valid interest? This answer is best answered through the democratic process and it has spoken in many states on this issue. This is where we may disagree as it is not the Judiciary's job to determine if a law is rational or prudent. They exist only to determine if a law is compatible with existing laws and the constitution. When judges deviate from this in order to create new policy, that falls under the realm of judicial activism and serves as proof the democratic process no longer works.

There are valid arguments why homosexuality should not be "normalized." Sexual promiscuity and in turn STDs are rampant in the homosexual community. Does this mean that every homosexual is sexually promiscuous or they have STDS? Of course not, nor does it imply that heterosexuals aren't sleeping around spreading disease left and right.

Homosexual marriage would also implicate the right (privilege) to adoption as well. I am a firm believer that a two parent household is ideal and should be strived for. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that single parent homes are the number one determining factor in the success of children and their likelihood to graduate school and not be involved in violent crimes. Does this mean that every child from a single parent home is maladjusted? Obviously not. Are your typical homosexual couples just as capable of raising a child as your average hetero couple? I don't know the answer to this question. I do know that being a child of two lesbians or two gay men would run a high certainty of scorn and social awkwardness while growing up. Childhood is hard enough with the regular socialization that occurs to children from "normal" homes.

I'm not necessarily making an argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry and in turn raise children, but I am suggesting that what I wrote is an example of rational concerns that the electorate could ponder when they voted on the issue. What I am stating is that it is not the place of one to three men or women in a robe to dismiss democracy because it doesn't align to their personal views. As long as a law doesn't violate the state or federal constitution, the judges have no further jurisdiction. Policy and enforcement of the law are at the exclusive jurisdiction of the other branches of government.

As marriage is not a right and as it is being applied universally (in the California case) I don't see how it is in violation of the US Constitution. California amended its own constitution, so they have no case at the state level.

This is why I think the Libertarians have the right message on this topic. The government should have no involvement in the social relationships of adults. To end this post on a lighter note, I refer you to Mr. Doug Stanhope: