later, prop h8

[cosmo105]

see you in supreme court, bitches!

*pops champagne*

[valvano]

all these couple have to do now is figure out how to reproduce without outside help.....

[Bob]

we have a combined problem of overpopulation and parentless children, but yes, allowing people who are likely to adopt a child to marry is the problem

[Bob]

looking back, i probably could have picked a better way to say it than "likely to adopt a child to marry" but you get my point goddamnit

[cosmo105]

Bob, I wanna gay marry you

[kaiser soze]

all these couple have to do now is figure out how to reproduce without outside help.....

it's unfortunate your parents reproduced

*badum ching!*

no seriously though --- why can't we let consenting adults make their own decisions? It's not like they're little boys being fucked against their will by the CHURCH.

keep praying for gays to go away

[travesty]

I fully support gay marriage but this ruling based out of the 14th ammendment opens up some serious issues. It begs me to ask if under the same ruling and descretion this judge used wouldn't our graduated tax scale also be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause?

[valvano]

real convenient that this judge is openly gay..

http://topics.npr.org/article/0b0sgIFbVafdd?q=California

i wonder if liberals would have the same feelings should a judge who was a huge NRA member make a similar decision knocking down gun control laws..:rolleyes:

[Turchinator]

real convenient that this judge is openly gay...

that shouldn't affect his ruling. Ronald Reagan knew this when he appointed him.

http://topics.npr.org/article/0b0sgIFbVafdd?q=California (http://topics.npr.org/article/0b0sgIFbVafdd?q=California)

i wonder if liberals would have the same feelings should a judge who was a huge NRA member make a similar decision knocking down gun control laws..:rolleyes:

I'm sure if his hypothetical ruling upholds the Constitutional Rights of all Americans, no one would be in a tizzy like you are here.

[Echewta]

I didn't realize that when you got a marriage license, that you are required to have babies. Well I'll be.

This changes everything.

[Echewta]

And what suprises me most about those against gay marriage as that they say it threatens the tradition of marriage. Yet in California, you see statistics showing 50 percent or more marriages end in divorce. I would see a much bigger threat from divorce than from same sex marriage. Yet, I see very little done to make divorce illegal or free counciling centers, etc.

[Adam]

I can't believe how backwards the UK is still with not allowing same-sex marriage. You can have civil partnerships tho. But still...

So is it legal now in America? Go you guys!

[cosmo105]

No, not yet. This was a proposition that was passed a bit ago in California and just got ruled unconstitutional in a court, but the anti-gay marriage lobby is going to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. So, if it were found to be unconstitutional there, then it would probably extend to other states too. Still, this is a pretty big landmark victory and will hopefully set a precedent for the legal battles to come.

Anyway, it's not totally legal in CA yet - the judge is apparently allowing for a stay on it while the haters appeal.

[HAL 9000]

real convenient that this judge is openly gay..

http://topics.npr.org/article/0b0sgIFbVafdd?q=California

i wonder if liberals would have the same feelings should a judge who was a huge NRA member make a similar decision knocking down gun control laws..:rolleyes:


I don't see this as a liberal vs conservative thing, it is more of an equality vs bigotry thing. Unfortunately, there does seem to be some correlation between bigotry and conservatism (as you have so expertly demonstrated) but I think it is unfair to assume that all conservatives are bigots.

[valvano]

I don't see this as a liberal vs conservative thing, it is more of an equality vs bigotry thing. Unfortunately, there does seem to be some correlation between bigotry and conservatism (as you have so expertly demonstrated) but I think it is unfair to assume that all conservatives are bigots.

you mean like the correlation between racism and democrats?

http://styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=4632BB47BE62494498CD8721E225DFA3&AudID=24508F02FEF54113AAE7F37C8AF3D905

[Adam]

I hate whites.

[Bob]

at the end of the day, i don't see how any argument against gay marriage doesn't ultimately boil down to "but they're GAY, gross!"

if you're lucky you're christian and you can pretend the bible keeps you from being a bigot

or jewish or muslim or whatever

[travesty]

don't forget some people try and use the "what about the kids" argument.
But I guess that is usually answered with "but they're GAY, gross!" too.

[Bob]

don't forget some people try and use the "what about the kids" argument.
But I guess that is usually answered with "but they're GAY, gross!" too.

to me, that one boils down to "gay people can't be trusted with children because they're bad parents and/or will molest them"

[Documad]

It begs me to ask if under the same ruling and descretion this judge used wouldn't our graduated tax scale also be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause?
There's a rational basis for taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than people who make less money.


at the end of the day, i don't see how any argument against gay marriage doesn't ultimately boil down to "but they're GAY, gross!"


yep, they can try to dress it up, but that's the argument.

[travesty]

There's a rational basis for taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than people who make less money.
And that would be...? If you apply the 14th ammendment as this judge did to mean that all people must be treated equally under the law regardless of public opinion or the will of the people I don't see how you can not argue against the graduated tax scale.

You can argue that everyone who makes $xxx are treated equally. BUT people who make $xxx are treated differently than people who make $yyy.
There is a differentiation there that rewards some and punishes others based on some aspect of their lives, in this case income. They are all still people right? I'm just saying that one could argue that gays absolutely have the same protections under the current laws as heteros; if they marry someone of the opposite sex. And Heteros have the same protection as gays under the curent law if they marry some of the same sex. What this judge is saying is that their is no difference between a gay marriage and a hetero marriage and the rule of law must be applied equally (I think) which I agree with, but I think it also opens up a Pandora's box to challenge a lot of our current laws, including the income tax as you begin to erase the recognition of human differences under the law. I'm game.

[yeahwho]

Wedding Gift Idea #1 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Rudy-Gay-Memphis-Grizzlies-Crystal-Block/14713013)

[yeahwho]

real convenient that this judge is openly gay..

http://topics.npr.org/article/0b0sgIFbVafdd?q=California

i wonder if liberals would have the same feelings should a judge who was a huge NRA member make a similar decision knocking down gun control laws..:rolleyes:

I think it's perfectly gay rational and gay logical based on the gay evidence presented to the gay Court.

[Bob]

And that would be...? If you apply the 14th ammendment as this judge did to mean that all people must be treated equally under the law regardless of public opinion or the will of the people I don't see how you can not argue against the graduated tax scale.

You can argue that everyone who makes $xxx are treated equally. BUT people who make $xxx are treated differently than people who make $yyy.
There is a differentiation there that rewards some and punishes others based on some aspect of their lives, in this case income. They are all still people right? I'm just saying that one could argue that gays absolutely have the same protections under the current laws as heteros; if they marry someone of the opposite sex. And Heteros have the same protection as gays under the curent law if they marry some of the same sex. What this judge is saying is that their is no difference between a gay marriage and a hetero marriage and the rule of law must be applied equally (I think) which I agree with, but I think it also opens up a Pandora's box to challenge a lot of our current laws, including the income tax as you begin to erase the recognition of human differences under the law. I'm game.

i think you're misunderstanding the rule here; the test under the 14th amendment is that a state law can only treat different classifications of people differently (ie gay vs. straight, wealthy vs. poor) if it's rationally related to a legitimate government objective, in other words not an arbitrary or capricious one (for example, gay marriage should be illegal because gay people are gross). there are stricter tests for other situations (for example laws that discriminate based on race or that deny people voting rights) but the bar exam is well behind me and i don't want to get into it

if you could prove that the graduated tax scale is based solely on moral disapproval of rich people in the same way that gay marriage bans are based solely on moral disapproval of gay people then you might have an argument based on this ruling, but i think that any lawyer worth a penny could convince a judge that that isn't the case

basically what i'm saying is that this case doesn't blow open the doors to start challenging laws which treat people differently, that door has been open for quite some time. this case is just another...dude in the...room...you know, the one behind the open door

[abcdefz]

Now, I know that some people are pretty venal about things they do in the name of God, but not everyone who's against gay
marriage is acting out of hate or bigotry. Everybody prefers to legislate their own take on morality, even if their take on it is
"stay out of people's private affairs." The Bible tells us that God hates homosexuality, so it's pretty logical that Christians
would oppose it, too.

The thing is: Homosexuality is a pretty easy target for most Christians because it's something pretty much all Christians can
agree on. It's convenient, because it's a sin that doesn't affect the majority of people.

Where Christians do equivocate in their walk-the-talk is in areas God hates just as much: Lying, other sexual immorality
(that would include lust, folks), taking advantage of your employees, gossip, drunkeness, idolatry (which could be one's car or
football team or Hummel figurines) and so on.

Christians are supposed to be non-judgmental, but not non-discerning. "Not judging" means I don't get to decide that you're
going to hell and so treat you accordingly. I am supposed to love you just as God does despite the fact that you lie, you drink
too much, you make your employees work through their breaks, you delight in Lindsay Lohan's misadventures, or you're having
sex with someone of the same gender -- and then I behave accordingly. This doesn't mean supporting your sin; that's not love.
If someone wants to eat nothing but candy as a diet, it's not love to enable that or to not speak to them about it in love if
you're called to do so. If someone wants to cheat on their taxes, no one's under any obligation to encourage them because
that's their life choice.

The "I was born this way" argument doesn't hold water for Christians. We were all born "this way"; that's a big part of the point.
We believe we can be fallen but forgiven, but trying to refrain from sin is what we're called to do. I've gotta stop lying. I've gotta
stop thinking I'm the center of the universe. I've got to stop overspending.

And, yes, not everyone in this country thinks this way. Fine. We have elections and courts as a part of our process, and
Christians are told in the book of Romans that they have to respect their government. But that respect is not a call to apathy,
and, again: Those who feel called to be part of the process are of course going to do what they think is the moral thing to do.
On all sides.

So at least try to unerstand where some of us are coming from.

Do I think homosexuality itself should be illegal? Not really, and that undermines my argument a bit. I think God lets us have free
choice for a reason, and I think there's a difference between something which is spiritually harmful and something which
adds the element of also being physically harmful. I just don't believe it should be sanctioned.

But please reconsider the idea that anyone who opposes gay marriage is hateful or a bigot. A little thing about "pots and kettles"
comes to mind.

[Bob]

if your objection to gay marriage is based on your religious beliefs though, should that really be the basis for a law against it that applies to everyone regardless of their own religious beliefs? putting aside any first amendment issues (i don't know enough about the establishment clause to speak with authority about that), isn't a law based on your religious beliefs kind of unfair to people who don't share those beliefs (which i'm certain IS protected by the first amendment)?

if you subscribe to a faith which says that homosexuality is an abomination then ok, i can understand why you'd want to protect homosexuals from being abominations but i'm sorry, i can't support a state law which "protects" everyone from doing it regardless of whether or not they share that faith because once you put aside the religious prohibition, there's just no basis for it at all.

and i'm sorry if you think that i think you're a bigot; i believe you when you say that you don't hate gay people but i stand by my earlier statement. to me, a religious objection to gay marriage still just boils down to "gay people are gross (because the bible says so)". i understand that the bible's important to you, but i kind of sympathize with the gays too, you know? nobody likes to be called an abomination based on who they like to have consensual sex with

[cosmo105]

a-z, your entire argument is really flawed there. Equating homosexuality with something like lying or being self-absorbed is pretty hateful.

[Echewta]

Does the bible really say god hates homosexuals? Or is it phrased a different way?

[Bob]

Does the bible really say god hates homosexuals? Or is it phrased a different way?

leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "

leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

[yeahwho]

It's the Ted Haggard argument.

[abcdefz]

Like I said, everyone who takes part in the process is trying to legislate their beliefs. You can't get around that. Even if your belief is
"stay out of people's private lives," that's your belief you're trying to impose on others.

All laws are rules imposed on others. What if I want anarchy? Too bad. What if I want to sunbathe nude downtown? Sorry. What if
I want to drive 100 miles an hour down an unoccupied road? Uh uh. The "but it doesn't hurt anyone" argument doesn't matter. We still
have laws, a group collectively decided they would be laws, and that was because they believed that according to their way of thinking,
this would be for the greater good.

People have inconvenient laws imposed on them all the time. I just found out that, since I gave notice, for the next thirty days my
landlord can give me 24 hours' notice before showing what is still "my" apartment to a potential tenant. This means I've got a lot of
cleaning to do this weekend which I hadn't counted on in time or expense. Too bad; it's California law.

As far as imposing my religion on others -- I mean, whether it's religion or philosophy or politics, all those laws came from certain ways
of thinking. Should me not impose our ways of thinking on others? That's exactly what laws are, whether we agree with them or not.
Just because it's handy to stamp ideology as a product of religion doesn't invalidate it as part of a political process. Everyone
comes to the table with their own ideology. Christian, Democrat, "progressive," PAC -- everybody.

[abcdefz]

leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "

leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."



It's in the New Testament, also, but yeah -- the emphasis is on hating the act.

People who don't believe in the Bible don't understand that there's a bunch of stuff in there that's very, very inconvenient. The point is
that what feels natural to us isn't always what's correct and that we shouldn't be governed by our feelings. I mean, there was a time
when how you dealt with mildew could be sinful. Fortunately, there's more freedom under the New Testament, but God still gets
to decide what's a sin and what's not.

Thomas Jefferson had a Bible which I believe is on display at Monticello. He simply cut out the passages he didn't like. That strikes
me as hubris.

[yeahwho]

Here in Seattle many churches have embraced the Gay community. Gays have for decades approached every Christian denominational church known in the USA with varying degrees of success. They always approach with love.

The idea that tolerance can exist within a community is the goal. There are gay pastors and ministers up and down the west coast.

[Whatitis]

a-z, your entire argument is really flawed there. Equating homosexuality with something like lying or being self-absorbed is pretty hateful.

It's the morals that we all live by and everybody has their own. Just because people have morals don't automatically make them haters, they just don't believe in it. That's not to say there are haters out there that share the same morals but to catagorize everybody that doesn't believe in gay marriage as haters, is very narrow sighted.

[Bob]

i think this is just one of those issues where christians (or muslims or jews or whatever) and non-christians (especially gay ones) have a really hard time seeing eye to eye on account of how drastically different and basically irreconcilable their beliefs are on the subject.

the christian view, at its most benign is "i don't hate homosexuals, but my moral code requires me to detest their actions (and apparently put them to death for it if you want to take it literally but thankfully few do)" and the non-christian gay view is "i prefer relationships with people of the same sex and don't believe in a god that condemns it"

i don't know how you can find a middle ground

[yeahwho]

There's Gay Churches (http://www.gaychristian.net/) to visit if a Christian were so inclined to. That would be a start toward a middle ground.

[yeahwho]

NYC (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=nyc%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)
Chicago (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=chicago%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)
Los Angeles (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=los%20angeles%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)
Houston (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Houston%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nl)
St Louis (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=st%20louis%20%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)
Phoenix (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=phoenix%20gay%20churches&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)

[travesty]

There are "Christian" churches who will accept anyone and anything as they are carrying a wallet or pur$e.

[valvano]

There are "Christian" churches who will accept anyone and anything as they are carrying a wallet or pur$e.

there are race-based civil rights groups who will accept those of that specific race as long as they have a specific political slant

[yeahwho]

Are you guys trying to say there may be some sort of hypocrisy with the Christian style of Churches here in the USA?

W:eek:W

[travesty]

i think you're misunderstanding the rule here; the test under the 14th amendment is that a state law can only treat different classifications of people differently (ie gay vs. straight, wealthy vs. poor) if it's rationally related to a legitimate government objective, in other words not an arbitrary or capricious one (for example, gay marriage should be illegal because gay people are gross). there are stricter tests for other situations (for example laws that discriminate based on race or that deny people voting rights) but the bar exam is well behind me and i don't want to get into it

if you could prove that the graduated tax scale is based solely on moral disapproval of rich people in the same way that gay marriage bans are based solely on moral disapproval of gay people then you might have an argument based on this ruling, but i think that any lawyer worth a penny could convince a judge that that isn't the case

basically what i'm saying is that this case doesn't blow open the doors to start challenging laws which treat people differently, that door has been open for quite some time. this case is just another...dude in the...room...you know, the one behind the open door

you make a lot of sense when you post Bob and this is just another reason why I'm not a lawyer.

[Documad]

I just want to say that I know plenty of gay people who are christian. I respect a-z and I'm glad that he gave us his perspective, but he only speaks for himself, the same way that I only speak for myself. Christian does not equal anti-gay or even disapproving of gay people. There is a lot of ridiculous stuff in the bible that today's christians have to ignore or explain away, as a-z acknowledged in his posts. i have friends who worship regularly at christian churches that practice the progressive aspects of christian doctrine like stewardship for the environment but also embrace gay families. I even know a priest who does that.

Most of the rules in the bible made sense when they were written. It was unsafe to eat shellfish before refrigeration, men used to be afraid of menstruating women and didn't want them in the temple (I wouldn't want to be around them pre tampons), and a religion that wanted to increase its population would be against sexual relationships that weren't going to result in children, the same way that catholics opposed birth control. I would have embraced those rules in 50 BCE. Plus there were a lot of rules that were in the bible to distinguish the jews and later the christians from the other competing groups, and there were groups that didn't have a problem with male on male sex. Frankly, my mind is closed to a bible-related argument in support of depriving my fellow citizens of fundamental rights. Surely that ended when slavery was made illegal in the US?

And yeah, I get that there's inconsistency and it could lead to people having sex with great danes but I can live with my hypocrisy.

[Documad]

And that would be...? If you apply the 14th ammendment as this judge did to mean that all people must be treated equally under the law regardless of public opinion or the will of the people I don't see how you can not argue against the graduated tax scale.

You can argue that everyone who makes $xxx are treated equally. BUT people who make $xxx are treated differently than people who make $yyy.
There is a differentiation there that rewards some and punishes others based on some aspect of their lives, in this case income. They are all still people right? I'm just saying that one could argue that gays absolutely have the same protections under the current laws as heteros; if they marry someone of the opposite sex. And Heteros have the same protection as gays under the curent law if they marry some of the same sex. What this judge is saying is that their is no difference between a gay marriage and a hetero marriage and the rule of law must be applied equally (I think) which I agree with, but I think it also opens up a Pandora's box to challenge a lot of our current laws, including the income tax as you begin to erase the recognition of human differences under the law. I'm game.

The government has to meet a very low hurdle to justify an economic regulation--there is very little scrutiny applied to those regulations. Do not fear a pandora's box issue. The court applied a long-standing, well established legal standard here. Ultimately, if this gets affirmed by the 9th Circuit and if the US Supreme Court takes it, the case might come out the other way. That's a very conservative court these days. But they'll be applying a similar test.

As for the tax argument, our progressive tax structure has been challenged a billion times by tax protestors under a ton of legal theories including the one you posit. Your argument has been repeatedly rejected. There are a number of theories you could use to support the progressive tax system, but I believe the one that's most often stated in high schools is that it makes sense for people who make more money to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because people who make a lower wage have to spend more of their money paying rent and buying food, so they should get to retain a larger percentage of their income, whereas people with a larger income should have a larger disposable income and are able to pay a higher tax rate. Now, you can argue that it would be better to let people at the higher end of the income scale retain their income because they might invest it and that might also have a benefit to society. But to survive a constitutional challenge, the law written by Congress doesn't have to be the best idea, it only needs one reasonable argument that could support it. Because in the US, we let the Congress make the laws (including the tax code) and the supreme court can only overturn Congress's laws in limited circumstances (when Congress does something that makes no sense or is irrational). The supreme court doesn't get to write the tax code.

Like Bob said, some things get evaluated on a higher standard than economic regulations, like racial laws. Congress can't make a law that discriminates on people solely based on race without beating a high hurdle. I'd place a high hurdle for laws that discriminate against gay people, but we will see what happens as this case progresses.

[travesty]

thank you for a solid perspective

[Sir SkratchaLot]

i think you're misunderstanding the rule here; the test under the 14th amendment is that a state law can only treat different classifications of people differently (ie gay vs. straight, wealthy vs. poor) if it's rationally related to a legitimate government objective, in other words not an arbitrary or capricious one (for example, gay marriage should be illegal because gay people are gross). there are stricter tests for other situations (for example laws that discriminate based on race or that deny people voting rights) but the bar exam is well behind me and i don't want to get into it

if you could prove that the graduated tax scale is based solely on moral disapproval of rich people in the same way that gay marriage bans are based solely on moral disapproval of gay people then you might have an argument based on this ruling, but i think that any lawyer worth a penny could convince a judge that that isn't the case

basically what i'm saying is that this case doesn't blow open the doors to start challenging laws which treat people differently, that door has been open for quite some time. this case is just another...dude in the...room...you know, the one behind the open door

You said "arbitrary or capricious" and "rationally related to a legitimate government objective." Next thing you know we'll be talking about the Erie Doctrine up in here.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

It's in the New Testament, also, but yeah -- the emphasis is on hating the act.

People who don't believe in the Bible don't understand that there's a bunch of stuff in there that's very, very inconvenient. The point is
that what feels natural to us isn't always what's correct and that we shouldn't be governed by our feelings. I mean, there was a time
when how you dealt with mildew could be sinful. Fortunately, there's more freedom under the New Testament, but God still gets
to decide what's a sin and what's not.

Thomas Jefferson had a Bible which I believe is on display at Monticello. He simply cut out the passages he didn't like. That strikes
me as hubris.


But God didn't write the Bible. And God certainly didn't translate the Bible into in English.

And the current Bible is really just a conglomeration of stories that "made the cut" so to speak.

It's all really about people enforcing some of the parts of the Bible that support their ideology and failing to enforce others that don't. For example, there are a number of parts of the new testiment that prohibit women from teaching (especially in Church). Nobody's enforcing that, but when it comes to things like homosexuality people freak out.

Jefferson cutting the pages out of the Bible that he didn't like is no different than what happens in every Christian Church accross America today.

[Bob]

You said "arbitrary or capricious" and "rationally related to a legitimate government objective." Next thing you know we'll be talking about the Erie Doctrine up in here.

well i was discussing a court ruling, they do occasionally use legal terms

[abcdefz]

But God didn't write the Bible. And God certainly didn't translate the Bible into in English.

And the current Bible is really just a conglomeration of stories that "made the cut" so to speak.

It's all really about people enforcing some of the parts of the Bible that support their ideology and failing to enforce others that don't. For example, there are a number of parts of the new testiment that prohibit women from teaching (especially in Church). Nobody's enforcing that, but when it comes to things like homosexuality people freak out.

Jefferson cutting the pages out of the Bible that he didn't like is no different than what happens in every Christian Church accross America today.



Christians believe the Bible is the word of God -- God using man to write God's message. Church elders did assemble it, but we believe that, whatever failings men have, what made the cut is the Bible. If we believe that God can create the universe, inspiring a book that is supposed to instruct and survive isn't much of a leap.

The thing about women not teaching (if I remember correctly) is pretty clearly one of those times when Paul basically says "here's how *I* handle it." I'll have to double check when I get to the library, but I'm almost certain of it, because I know that there are at least one or two deacons in the NT who are women.

But I do know that there is some sort of prohibition about head coverings or something that seems odd. That's something else to double check.

[abcdefz]

Yeah, it's fine for women to teach. They're not supposed to be in a position of continually teaching over men, but they can teach
women and children. Though there's also the argument from Galatians indicating that under Christ, male and female are equal, and
the teaching thing is more a matter of tradition than holiness, per se.

But there is a consistent theme in scripture that man is supposed to be the leader, but God raises up women at times for the role,
especially if men aren't doing what they're supposed to.

Some churches have female pastors in senior positions. I personally have never felt called to be a member of a church in that
situation, but I've assisted.

[travesty]

Isn't everything in that book kind of "per se"?

[abcdefz]

To non-believers, I imagine it's "per se" at best.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

well i was discussing a court ruling, they do occasionally use legal terms

I see, so you had a legal interest (as opposed to beneficial or equitable interest) in using such terms. It's cool then.

[Echewta]

Marriage and the state has nothing to do with the chuch. Two people of the same sex who want to formalize a civil union or "get married" in the eyes of the state do not need a bible or house of worship to do so nor do those of the opposite sex. Ending this form of discimination won't mean that you have to have it in your religious backyard. Or in Utah.

I truely hope those who supported Prop 8 have it backfire in their faces as it goes to the Supreme Court and is show to be unconsitutional. Even with the conservative lean, it seems such a simple call.

Thanks for the bible highlights. I wonder if soldiers who "lie" next to each other in a foxhole or ditch, as close as they may next to a woman, would be detestable and should be put to death.

[kaiser soze]

it's a shame that a rather large contingent of people learn hate rather than love from the bible and other religious text.

I wonder why they don't regularly act on these verses?

http://www.evilbible.com

oh, and here's Ted Haggard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard)

[yeahwho]

Just read this well thought out piece By Russ Douthat in the NYTimes.

The Marriage Ideal (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html)

Basically the article examines the history of marriage in society, religion and territories of earth. Then it examines marriage in America, then it examines freedom, bigotry and patriotism. Concluding in what makes this Country great and how we fulfill that greatness.

This is a very interesting chapter in US history.

[Bob]

Thanks for the bible highlights. I wonder if soldiers who "lie" next to each other in a foxhole or ditch, as close as they may next to a woman, would be detestable and should be put to death.

i always read "lie" to mean the lies you tell a woman when you're trying to have sex with her like "oh yeah i make 6 figures" or "i volunteer at a soup kitchen twice a week" or "i coined the phrase 'pardon my french'" or whatever. but with your bros god wants you to keep it real

at any rate lesbians are in the clear so good for them

[yeahwho]

I went out and got lied last nite.

[Echewta]

August 18th the world ends and California gets extra dough for the marriage license fees.

[Whatitis]

....and a vote of the people is overturned by a judge.

I'm for equal rights for everyone but put the issue aside that is troublesome.

[Documad]

....and a vote of the people is overturned by a judge.

I'm for equal rights for everyone but put the issue aside that is troublesome.

I don't understand your comment. One of the purposes of the US Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority. Constitutional rights are enforced by judges. That's our system.

If the majority of the citizens in my state voted to outlaw the practice of the Catholic religion, is that okay?

From a purely political standpoint, it's troubling whenever social progress is made by a court decision instead of by majority will because there is political blowback and it takes time for people to get used to it. But it's something we have to live with occasionally when there's an important civil/constitutional right at stake. In this case, if this gets to the US Supreme Court and there's a 5-4 decision (whatever the result) it will bug me a bit. I hate that such important issues depend upon who the president appoints, and I'm never satisfied with the nominee.

[Echewta]

The Judicial Branch is one of three independent parts of the US Government, and is responsible for the federal court system. The primary responsibility of the judicial branch is to interpret and apply the laws, and ensure their constitutionality.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_Judicial_Branch_of_the_US_government _do

The Judicial Branch is right on track with this. Just because a majority of people voted on a law, doesn't make it constitutional. An appeals court could overturn this ruling and the Supreme Court could overturn that one.

[Bob]

....and a vote of the people is overturned by a judge.

I'm for equal rights for everyone but put the issue aside that is troublesome.

it's been said twice already but yeah, that's kind of their job. they've been doing it since 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v_madison)

[Whatitis]

I understand it, I just don't like it especially when a judge has the potential of being biased. But that is what other courts are for.

[Echewta]

All judges have the potential to be bias (see Supreme Court). What makes you think this judge was? Because of his sexual orientation? Then I should assume a straight judge would be bias to uphold the prop?

[afronaut]

Like I said, everyone who takes part in the process is trying to legislate their beliefs. You can't get around that. Even if your belief is
"stay out of people's private lives," that's your belief you're trying to impose on others.

All laws are rules imposed on others. What if I want anarchy? Too bad. What if I want to sunbathe nude downtown? Sorry. What if
I want to drive 100 miles an hour down an unoccupied road? Uh uh. The "but it doesn't hurt anyone" argument doesn't matter. We still
have laws, a group collectively decided they would be laws, and that was because they believed that according to their way of thinking,
this would be for the greater good.

People have inconvenient laws imposed on them all the time. I just found out that, since I gave notice, for the next thirty days my
landlord can give me 24 hours' notice before showing what is still "my" apartment to a potential tenant. This means I've got a lot of
cleaning to do this weekend which I hadn't counted on in time or expense. Too bad; it's California law.

As far as imposing my religion on others -- I mean, whether it's religion or philosophy or politics, all those laws came from certain ways
of thinking. Should me not impose our ways of thinking on others? That's exactly what laws are, whether we agree with them or not.
Just because it's handy to stamp ideology as a product of religion doesn't invalidate it as part of a political process. Everyone
comes to the table with their own ideology. Christian, Democrat, "progressive," PAC -- everybody.

This is true, everyone does tend to bring their own ideology to the table, and ultimately, everyone is trying to impose their own beliefs. All ideologies deserve to at least be listened to. But I think you are leaving one important point out: America has been founded, shaped, and operated under one single ideology: that is the ideology that is spelled out in our constitution. In America, it is the Constitution above all else. The Constitution above the Bible. And most importantly, the Constitution above the democratic process. Think of it as a benign dictatorship. All ways of thinking are allowed, all ways of thinking are considered. But in the end, we shape our laws only by the philosophy which this country has been shaped. Only one ideology is allowed to be imposed, and this is acceptable because it is an ideology that says you are allowed to believe whatever it is you wish, and you will be protected. And it is this I believe presents a good illustration for the separation of church and state. You personally are allowed to hold the Bible above the constitution. However, as far as matters of politics and law is concerned, you are not. There must be a separation there. Affairs of state should be free from the tyranny of personal opinion and belief.

There is nothing constitutionally significant about the issue of gay marriage until you start talking about denying a person's right to do it. Now, you do have the right to bring your way of thinking to the table and to vote based on that, but if that results in something that is contrary to the constitution, there is no reason it should be upheld or even considered. You should not have the right to change to constitution from a document protecting individual liberty into a document "protecting individual liberty as long as it doesn't clash with what Christians believe in." Muslims do not have the right to impose shariah law on you simply because the majority has voted on it. Atheists do not have the right to impose atheism on you simply because the majority votes for that. Christians do not have the right to impose their beliefs on gay people because Christians are a voting majority.

We do have the issue of states rights, and I do think states should be allowed to vote on their own issues. However, since being a state means you are a part of the greater united states, you still shouldn't be allowed to vote contrary to the constitution.

[abcdefz]

^

That's a fair and intelligent argument. It doesn't completely dissuade me, but it gives me pause.

If I were a legislator, I don't think I could vote against it, but as a citizen, I'm less bound by that.


"What would you have done?"

"I wasn't stupid enough to run for President."

[abcdefz]

Having just scanned the Constitution, I don't find much about people's rights in there except in amendments.

I can understand if the plea is about "life, liberty," but then I wonder how they get around that for abortion. Saying that something with
a beating heart isn't alive just because it's dependant on something else -- does that mean anyone in a coma isn't alive?

-- and the last time the United States let some people decide what other people's value was eventually led us to the 13th amendment.

[Documad]

We're never going to be able to discuss this because we're starting from different places. I'm at this place: A fetus doesn't have constitutional rights but its host body does.

As for the rest, there are a million people who could explain it better. But I think the theory is that people already had their rights. The constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it grants rights to the federal government. The federal government is supposed to only do things that are derived from the powers granted in the constitution. When the constitution was being written and passed, some people worried that it gave the federal government too much power, so they cobbled on amendments to explicitly protect particular rights that were important to them at the time. And many of the particular rights of persons they explicitly protected were designed to protect the minority (rich white male creditors) from the majority (farmer/laborer/servant debtors). A bunch of people with an interest in the outcome negotiated, hence the stuff about how to count slaves. It wasn't all about lofty principles. And a lot of it was a reaction to things that went badly when our country was operating under the articles of confederation, which didn't give the federal government enough power. That's what I learned in high school anyhow. :rolleyes:

So yeah, you're not going to find all of your rights as a human spelled out in the constitution because it was assumed that you had them already and that wasn't its purpose.