EPTProp 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote: The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. Banning gay marriage does not break the bill of rights, in which there is no "right to marry" (what the frack does that mean, anyway?) or any other thing which could possibly dictate a right for homosexual unions to be endorsed by the state and called marriages. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to overturn a state constitution to the contrary is totally unconstitutional and opposed to the principles of federalism. That is completely wrong. I refer you to Article 6 of the Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Any law of the Federal government created within it's legitimate purview supersedes any state law to the contrary. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote: The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. Banning gay marriage does not break the bill of rights, in which there is no "right to marry" (what the frack does that mean, anyway?) or any other thing which could possibly dictate a right for homosexual unions to be endorsed by the state and called marriages. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to overturn a state constitution to the contrary is totally unconstitutional and opposed to the principles of federalism. Unless it specifically "breaks" the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights did not even apply to the states until the 14th amendment was ratified. oh, and prop 8's constitutionality was challenged on the grounds that it violated the 14th amendment | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote: The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. It does. It denies homosexual couples equal protection under federal law. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. ... "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote. The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Gigantic win for the proponents of rationality. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:42 Mindcrime wrote: 100%? negative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California Haha I myself ended up quoting Wikipedia after if you read a few posts later. Someone said something along the lines of "I think there is a difference for XXX." So I said "You're right, thanks Wikipedia" and quoted that. X_X. My bad. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:48 neohero9 wrote: It does. It denies homosexual couples equal protection under federal law. Gigantic win for the proponents of rationality. Well, except for the massive point raised in the OP that marriage isn't a right. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:53 kzn wrote: Well, except for the massive point raised in the OP that marriage isn't a right. Well from what you quoted they never claim it is...? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:54 FabledIntegral wrote: Well from what you quoted they never claim it is...? Try again. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." [edit] And I have to laugh at people pretending the Bill of Rights or the Constitution are remotely rational. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:56 kzn wrote: Try again. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." God damn it I feel I've failed in this thread a lot. I even reread the fucking thing to make sure it didn't say "rights" in it. I should stop posting. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:56 kzn wrote: Try again. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." [edit] And I have to laugh at people pretending the Bill of Rights or the Constitution are remotely rational. Is believing marriage to be an "extension of religious faith" in this day and age any more rational? Should atheists be denied marriage on the basis of that? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:00 TOloseGT wrote: Is believing marriage is still an "extension of the religious faith" is any more rational? Should atheists be denied marriage on the basis of that? I'm not claiming either side is more "rational" about it. But when there are people on this page who are laughing at the idea that you can legislate morality, and pretending that a claim like what I quoted is grounded in rational thought, I can't help but laugh. There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. [edit] And given I actually believe marriage, strictly, remains a religious institution - yes, if a church doesn't want to marry atheists, they can go ahead and tell atheists to fuck off. There's this retarded insistence by people to combine the symbolic institution of marriage with the institution that the government creates, when they're not the same thing at all. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
So where do the religious get off saying that this infringes on their rights? | ||
|
slowzerg
United States62 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote: There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. Which arguments, specifically, in favor of allowing gay marriage are bullshit? They're overwhelmingly legit aside from a few duds that aren't central to the argument. edit] And given I actually believe marriage, strictly, remains a religious institution - yes, if a church doesn't want to marry atheists, they can go ahead and tell atheists to fuck off. But neither an atheist nor a homosexual couple requires the involvement of a religious organization to get married. It can all be handled by the state. If churches refuse to participate in ceremonies that conflict with their beliefs that's fine, but that's not a basis to deny marriage to those who fall outside of their organization's purview. And there are religious organizations that do support gay marriage (Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism for example). If these organizations recognize the union of two individuals regardless of gender, they shouldn't be denied to the right to perform a ceremony just because it conflicts with a separate faith neither party is involved with. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote: I'm not claiming either side is more "rational" about it. But when there are people on this page who are laughing at the idea that you can legislate morality, and pretending that a claim like what I quoted is grounded in rational thought, I can't help but laugh. There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. [edit] And given I actually believe marriage, strictly, remains a religious institution - yes, if a church doesn't want to marry atheists, they can go ahead and tell atheists to fuck off. There's this retarded insistence by people to combine the symbolic institution of marriage with the institution that the government creates, when they're not the same thing at all. Oh, so you're actually talking about the religious ceremony of marriage as recognized by the religion involved, rather than the state given license? | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
Simple solution to all problems: 1.) Fuck marriage as a legally recognized institution. If we're going by religious definitions, it doesn't belong under the purview of the state. Let marriage be just that: a religious institution completely separate from the state. 2.) Under law, provide equal protection to all groups of people living together for a common economic/emotional reasons for any period exceeding x year(s). Best friends as long-term roommates? Good as married. Gay boys having fun? Good as married. Heterosexual loving? Good as married. These couples would get the same tax advantages (the right to file as one, claiming dependents for returns, etc...), legal rights (i.e. confidence between spouses in a court of law, next of kin standing, etc...). On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote: There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. Agreed. The only issues to this solution I see people bringing up are: 1.) Some militant gay rights activists will still scream. But we can ignore them. 2.) Some hardcore conservatives will continue to support this traditional overcoupling of church and state. 3.) It is probably objectively better for the stability society if instutions are totally homogenous. Same religion, same race, same definition of "marriage," same political beliefs, etc... Difference always always always, no matter what, creates intolerance and discrimination on some level. This is irrelevant to the "normative" approach Western constitutional law has traditionally taken. However the only issue worth actually talking about is: What are the legal standards for that communion? I'd say, living together for at least 2 years, after which the couple can pick up a license to maintain these protections. There may be a better set of nondiscriminatory standards. Anyway, these threads always suck with 90% of people being uninformed so there's no point in even talking reason. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:04 slowzerg wrote: Which arguments, specifically, in favor of allowing gay marriage are bullshit? They're overwhelmingly legit aside from a few duds that aren't central to the argument. Well, pretty much every argument that implies gay marriages are or would be identical to straight marriages, in direct contravention of basic facts of biology. "Equal protection under the law" doesn't mean "oh fuck if we give person X right A we have to give person Y right A". It means that the procedure by which we decide to give a person right A must remain the same as it is applied to all people. I've tried this argument before and I just got a bunch of shit flung at me there too but whatever, here we go: Let us assume, for now, that the government offers tax incentives to married couples purely to incentivize marriages, and thus to incentivize childbearing. We can argue about whether or not tax benefits should attach at birth or marriage or whatever, but thats not really relevant. The point is, the government doesn't give a flying fuck if you want to symbolically declare your love for a man, a woman, a cat, or anything else. They only care if it impacts something that matters to them, like the continued existence of a population. So they say "hey, married couples produce more well adjusted children, lets make more people get married by basically giving them money". And behold, we have the government institution of marriage, which has nothing to do with the symbolic institution. Now, gay people come along and demand to be allowed to marry. What are they actually demanding? Two very separate things. They are demanding, perhaps, to be allowed to symbolically declare their love for each other - which is retarded, because they already are allowed to. Thus, what they are in fact demanding is the money attached to the government institution of marriage. In quite strict terms, they haven't even come close to demonstrating they have a "right" to that money. It is quite possible that they do have a right to money, perhaps even an identical amount of money - but it is not known, and it is not obvious. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:38 L wrote: The religious values of marriage? I'm pretty sure the evidence adduced at the trial showed the cultural value of marriage, but that's far and away something different than the religious value. If marriage wasn't so culturally adapted, we'd have had polyandry and polygyny as a rational response to the feminist movement. From the tone of your post I would gather that you see polygamists are irrational people. That is an interesting example, considering that Mormons were the largest contributors (by millions) to proposition 8. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote: I'm not claiming either side is more "rational" about it. But when there are people on this page who are laughing at the idea that you can legislate morality, and pretending that a claim like what I quoted is grounded in rational thought, I can't help but laugh. There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. [edit] And given I actually believe marriage, strictly, remains a religious institution - yes, if a church doesn't want to marry atheists, they can go ahead and tell atheists to fuck off. There's this retarded insistence by people to combine the symbolic institution of marriage with the institution that the government creates, when they're not the same thing at all. Okay, for one, I don't think Churches lose the right to deny marriages. The government doesn't deal with that shit. Too hard to govern, dealing with religion, government out. This is *or at least should be >_>* about the secular institution of marriage. Now, about that bullshit. It might be opinion, but it's opinion that matters since it usually deals with the opinion of a judge. You might say, THAT'S BULLSHIT! A JUDGE'S OPINION SHOULDN'T MATTER! But a judge's opinion does anyway in our laws as they decide the interpretation of our laws and its constitutionality. As for Prop 8's constitutionality, it's currently been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, it violates our 14th amendment of equal protection under the law. This means it's no longer dealing with our "bullshit debates," but rather it's dealing with the laws that could affect the course of a nation. And the "shit" being thrown around is rational to the throwers IMO. =/ I can see my views as being rational and you can see yours as being rational. You can't say what is or isn't rational like it's an objective stance. I can argue whether or not it's rational for Koreans to like SC:BW that much, but I can't argue that I have an opposable thumb. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:17 keV. wrote: From the tone of your post I would gather that you see polygamists are irrational people. That is an interesting example, considering that Mormons were the largest contributors (by millions) to proposition 8. Ah, Mormonism is unfortunate. I knew a really pretty girl, then I found out she was Mormon :[ And, I am unsurprised the Mormons only got a wrist slap for breaking the law to fund Prop 8 | ||
| ||
