If prop 8 passes...

[Piquechampion]

Kulindahr needs to STFU

I for one would love to see atheism as the ONLY, OFFICIAL credo in all the countries.... and send those stupid religious fanatics to their deaths...

But that's just me

 

[Kulindahr]

No... just sick and fucking tired of having people decide if I should be equal to them or not. Sick and fucking tired of having bisexual men tell me that I should be happy with the scraps thrown at me. You know.. I'm not as good as they are, don't ya know?

Just tired of being told to stop standing up for myself.

The problem is that you're standing up JUST for yourself, if you want the law changed so that two men can get hitched. That's not equal rights at all; it's special privileges.

My argument is that we're better than that! I'm not saying to settle for scraps thrown our way, but to stop angling for just a slice of the privilege pie and go for the whole bloody thing: equal rights for ALL!

Back with women, they could campaign for "women's rights" and not be exclusive, because "women" legitimately defined everyone who is not "men". But "gays" does not legitimately define everyone who is not a heterosexual monogamist. We need to fight for all of those, against persecution by those HMs.

I don't decide "if you should be equal to" anybody: the fact is that you are equal, and there are some busybodies out there who believe that we should be denied the exercise of our equality.


Oh -- the closed mind to which I referred was a plain bias against anything other than marriage/whatever including just two people.

 

[Piquechampion]

What we gay folks need is an organization like the Black Panthers, an organization that will fight back twice as hard, and will not take prisoners.... an organization that will take our rights, whether they like it or not....

As Howard Beale said, we are ¨mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore¨

Seriously, this whole thing makes me look in a favorable light the ETA'S, the IRA'S, and all the organizations who just want their rigths.

 

[construct]

So people can make an ammendment defining marriage that is in violation of another part (due process) of the state's constitution? Wouldn't that create a conflict of laws?

An amendment may restrict, modify, replace, or abolish a prior constitutional provision. It would not be a conflict of laws.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cool. Hmm. So perhaps abolish the tax perk of married filing jointly as it violates seperation of church and state and only is available to people who can get married? Are u suggesting the gov't shudn't favor one association over another under freedom of association?

I'm not suggesting anything; I'm flat declaring it.
If it's a right, the government cannot play favorites. Now, either two (or more) people have a right to be bonded together, or they don't. If they do, then the government has no moral choice other than to honor all those bondings, and to do so equally. If they don't, then the government can't bestow benefits and/or privileges on any people who do that.

It's not just separation of church and state; that's only one peak of this iceberg, one which arises because all those people out there "defending marriage" are waving one particular holy book and claiming, "God said so!" as their justification. For any judge with an IQ higher than the number of electoral votes in California, that mere fact should be enough to order all laws in his jurisdiction invalid and void if they so much as mention the word "marriage", and to demand that the council, legislature, or Congress get its ass in gear and write the law to be religiously and preferencely neutral -- and if he's literate, to toss R. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress at them and require that every form of "marriage" in it be covered by the new law (monogamy, polygamy [either direction], group, line, clan, contract...).

If this is a free country, then three little old ladies living together who can persuade the young mailman to marry all three of them should be able to do so -- and get the same government benefits as the gay twins next door who got united down at the Universalist Society, and the Muslim on the corner with three wives, and for that matter the Roman Catholic priest who is "married" to the Church -- or all eight college kids on staff as lifeguards at the civic pool should be able to enter into a "domestic commitment" and get the same benefits as not only the three old ladies and the others, but as their happily married, heterosexual bosses who have been together since high school swim team. That's called "freedom of association", and it is actually a bigger peak on this iceberg.

Whether the relationships get tax perks or not is a question for legislators -- but if this is a free country, then their job is to make those tax perks available, and equitable, to all relationships and all those in relationships that have been declared to the government as firm and binding (or whatever language one might want to use).

 

[Kulindahr]

there are already churches marrying gays regardless of what anyone says...it is a debate that is heated in the christian church particularly.

That's a very good reason for my "Returning Sacred Marriage to Those of Faith" Act ( see http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4261161#post4261161).

 

[Kulindahr]

It's clear that some of you folk need to spend some time with In re Marriage Cases. It's the California Supreme Court decision that Prop 8 is attempting to overturn. Here's a link.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

In it you will see how the right to marry is protected by due process and how the right to choose your own mate is protected as equal protection. The court finds that domestic partnerships are a scheme that is inferior to marriage. For good measure, they reject the idea of deinstitutionalizing marriage.

The majority opinion is the first 121 pages.

Is there a non-PDF version? That format is clumsy and unfriendly.

 

[construct]

For any judge with an IQ higher than the number of electoral votes in California, that mere fact should be enough to order all laws in his jurisdiction invalid and void if they so much as mention the word "marriage", and to demand that the council, legislature, or Congress get its ass in gear and write the law to be religiously and preferencely neutral . . . .

This is precisely what the California Supreme Court considered and rejected. In re Marriage Cases at 119-21. You may download it at the link I posted above.

 

[construct]

Is there a non-PDF version? That format is clumsy and unfriendly.

I haven't looked for an html version. I'll see what I can do.

 

[Kulindahr]

True. I guess what I meant was a church can marry u but if the gov't doesn't recognize it...

So how is that fair under freedom of religion. If a religion/church chooses to marry gay people how does the gov't get around the right to freedom of religion.

There isn't a way, not morally.

If one church does marriages under definition A, and another church does them under definition B, then the government cannot recognize def. A alone without engaging in religious discrimination against those married under def. B.

That's exactly the condition which prevails in the U.S., even apart from the gay issue, since there are religions which approve of multiple-person marriage arrangements.

Now that some churches are adding def. G (for gay) to their practice, the religious [STRIKE]perse[/STRIKE]discrimination is getting worse.

BTW, in that court decision to which Construct posted a link, the court indirectly suggested one step toward a solution, namely to come up with a name other than marriage that applies to everyone equally.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr needs to STFU

I for one would love to see atheism as the ONLY, OFFICIAL credo in all the countries.... and send those stupid religious fanatics to their deaths...

But that's just me

I get it.

So, count yourself as not believing in a free country.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^got ya...ur making a lot of sense. Churches can play favourites but the gov't can't. The gov't CAN say legally recognized marriages are between 2 persons but they cannot say what sex those 2 people have to be or what race. Maybe freedom of association has not been intrepreted to mean marriage in the US supreme court?

No, freedom of association is freedom of association, and that's an absolute. Ergo, the government can't limit the number to 2... or to 3, or 4, or 5.

It CAN award the same benefits to each relationship, regardless of the number of people in it, if it's careful -- easiest way would be to assign benefits to a "household", ignoring the number of people in it, just defining it as a group of people centered around a committed relationship (registered union, whatever).

Otherwise you'll just be going through the whole thing over again; having included everyone with a 2-person relationship (2PR), now the 3PR folks will be accusing the 2PRs of discrimination, and they'll be right. Our fight shouldn't be for 2PR, but for nPR.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is precisely what the California Supreme Court considered and rejected. In re Marriage Cases at 119-21. You may download it at the link I posted above.

Yes, they rejected it on legal-games grounds, not on principles. They also didn't look at the fact that the marriage as established is religious, and effects religious discrimination. So they weren't looking at the evidence I pointed to; rather they confined themselves to a very narrow consideration of things.

That's the sort of thing that makes our laws so confusing and tangled. We need judges who start from principles -- like the basic "You own yourself".

 

[construct]

Is there a non-PDF version? That format is clumsy and unfriendly.

Here is how to find the Lexis version of the case (readable within your browser. It's free, and you don't have to sign up for anything. Go to

http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/?

Accept the terms and conditions; then click on "view opinions"

Select "CA Supreme Court Published Cases."

Type "In re Marriage Cases" (with the quotation marks) in the search box. Click "Go."

You will find yourself at the case. The opinion begins after a notes about subsequent history, a list of parties and their attorneys, etc.

I hope this helps.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ I guess it is all irrelevant if the ammendment passes. Apparently a state can ban fat people so long as there is an ammendment.

It can go to federal court...

^^So do u believe the gov't has any business at all defending the moral fabric of America? Allowing a group of cousins for example to get married?

Actually, letting even first cousins get married isn't that big a deal, so long as you don't repeat it very often. The prohibition these days is more a religious thing than scientific.

As for "defending the moral fabric", that depends on what you mean by the phrase. A lot of what the government defends these days is quite immoral, by rational standards, albeit upheld by religious ones.

If by "moral standard", though, you mean the implications and obligations flowing from the basic truth that we each own ourselves, then the answer is a solid yes: to fail to do so is to infect the body politic with the scheme of its own destruction.

A great deal of our law, however, stands contrary to that moral source: we have people believing they deserve something for nothing, and even more people believing they have a "right" to tell others what to do. Both of those are expected ailings of democracy, and vices of those who disdain the Republic.

One of the first moral principles arising from self-ownership is "all men are created equal". Hardly any Americans believe it, or have believed it for several generations, else we would not be in a position wherein equality is little more than a concept in a courtroom, and finds expression rarely save in places such as sporting events or large concerts. If government devoted itself to adjusting all laws to make that principle evident, and to changing institutions to establish it as a reality, it would have the work of half a century ahead of it and could accomplish little of greater worth.




Of course, that would make the religious right more than a little upset.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here is how to find the Lexis version of the case (readable within your browser. It's free, and you don't have to sign up for anything. Go to

http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/?

Accept the terms and conditions; then click on "view opinions"

Select "CA Supreme Court Published Cases."

Type "In re Marriage Cases" (with the quotation marks) in the search box. Click "Go."

You will find yourself at the case. The opinion begins after a notes about subsequent history, a list of parties and their attorneys, etc.

I hope this helps.

Excellent!

Tanks.

 

[construct]

Yes, they rejected it on legal-games grounds, not on principles. They also didn't look at the fact that the marriage as established is religious, and effects religious discrimination. So they weren't looking at the evidence I pointed to; rather they confined themselves to a very narrow consideration of things.

That's the sort of thing that makes our laws so confusing and tangled. We need judges who start from principles -- like the basic "You own yourself".

Marriage as established is not religious. The court here takes something like a natural law argument to establish that marriage is a fundamental institution in human society which is beneficial to the society, to the couple and their family, and to the individual spouses. They do not consider any part of this in the context of religion particularly (though they do mention religious concepts once or twice).

The question before the court in part VI of the opinion was whether the appropriate remedy would be to deny the term marriage to everyone or to extend it to include gay couples. The court followed legislative intent to extend marriage to gay couples.

Courts do not start from first principles. That is beyond a court's scope. That is the job of legislatures.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
On constitutional issues, they darned well ought to start from first principles, because that's what a constitution is: an embodiment of first principles.

The primary question must always be, not "What did the legislature mean?", but "What does the constitution mean to say?" All else should be secondary to supreme courts.

 

[construct]

^
On constitutional issues, they darned well ought to start from first principles, because that's what a constitution is: an embodiment of first principles.

The primary question must always be, not "What did the legislature mean?", but "What does the constitution mean to say?" All else should be secondary to supreme courts.

Nope. We start with the "embodiment" as you call it, the constitution itself. Well, really we start with the facts of the case. We follow it through its procedural history to how it got to the court. We frame the issues that the case brings to the court. Then we turn to the constitution itself. We look at what the framers intended through examining documents contemporary with the passage of the particular provision. We look at how things have changed since then. We look at prior cases. We examine the statute in question within the context of all other statutes on the same topic. We look to legislative history. Then we decide whether the law can be interpreted in such a way as to conform to the constitution or whether it needs to be cured or struck down. If there is some further remedy for the parties, we order that as well.

That's a basic outline of constitutional analysis. The California Supreme Court explains a lot of this piecemeal in In re Marriage Cases. The explanations given there are fairly standard for how judges decide constitutional cases, and the opinion itself is a good example of how it's done.

 

[Kulindahr]

No..I want the law to stay how it is so I can STAY married.

Sorry, but you're wrong here.

What YOU want is to have it written into the law that I can't get married so YOU can keep your "better than those faggots" status. Which is probably why you call yourself "bisexual" too.

You're very good at making things up.
Have you tried actually reading my posts???

You're still not standing up for equal rights for all, which means you're not standing up for equal rights. You're perfectly happy to keep the law as it is -- discriminatory.