Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[Godwynn]

kramerfan is tearing this thread a new one

just fyi guys

 

[illram]

Is this being ruled unconstitutional accordint to the Californian constitution or the US constitution?

And am I right in my understanding that the key distinction that will keep this ruling California specific is that people did have the right to gay marriage[/i] and then it was taken away and that can't be done without reason? Would the ruling therefore suggest that the right to gay marriage is irreversible once instituted in a given jurisdiction?

US Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. One Circuit's decision is not necessarily binding precedent in other Circuits, so if a state did decide to institute gay marriage, and then rescind it, another court could simply decline to follow this case's reasoning. This case does have some strong persuasive authority of course, but ultimately if we had every single Circuit court in the country hear this case tomorrow, I bet that some Circuits would not come to the same conclusion.

Of course the SCOTUS will likely take this up, or the 9th Circuit will rehear it en banc, (i.e., a panel of 11 random 9th Circuit judges rather than 3 will rehear the whole case, at the discretion of the Circuit's Judges) so this decision will ultimately be moot within a year.

 

[useless]

Well, homosexuality isn't as bad as the other two, but Christians feel like it will be the beginning of going against their beliefs. You do have to symphasize.

No i don't actually.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

^^This.

I would go so far as to argue that it is our duty as members of a free society to treat such authoritarian morality with derision and ridicule.

 

[kramerfan86]

Yea I fail to see how we "have to sympathize" with people attempting to enforce their religious beliefs on others. They need to worry about their own lives and let God act as judge on the behavior of others.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm nominally Christian and I don't sympathise with people too in love with their own self-righteousness to attempt to withhold basic civil liberties from small sections of the populace.

 

[vypernight]

Knowing several gay and lesbian couples (including my boss, who's been with his partner for 18 years. It's still a phase though, right?), I hope this eventually results in same-sex marriage made legal here in FL as well.

I don't understand the religious arguments against it, especially considering a number of religions, including several Christian ones, not having a problem with it. Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality, it was about a bunch of drunken morons being d*cks to angels. Even if you took the angels out of the equation, you have a bunch of drunken morons partying around alcohol and torches in an area where the soil is extremly combustable. Yet, after an incident that wipes out two cities, homosexuality is seen as the sin, but wine is served in church?

The procreation argument is stupid. The human race is in no danger of underpopulation. If anything, couples who can't/don't procreate are doing us a favor, and they aren't nearly numerous enough to be a threat.

Finally, granting equal rights to consenting adults does not push anything on anyone else. No priest will ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage any more than he is forced to perform a straight one.

Sooner or later, same-sex marriage will be passed by Congress nation-wide, and people will continue to complain, probably like they did when Civil Rights and Women's suffrage were passed, also by Congress.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is this being ruled unconstitutional accordint to the Californian constitution or the US constitution?

And am I right in my understanding that the key distinction that will keep this ruling California specific is that people did have the right to gay marriage[/i] and then it was taken away and that can't be done without reason? Would the ruling therefore suggest that the right to gay marriage is irreversible once instituted in a given jurisdiction?

That's kinda the way it worked in Canada, in that it was easier to give the right than to take it away. The Constitutional process for adding gay marriage to the definition of 'marriage' is much, much simpler than the process for removing it.

Hell, i'm attracted to Olivia Wilde, I don't think I'll be marrying her anytime. Are my rights being trampled on?

Wait, you want the right to marry Olivia Wilde (if you two agree), but you don't think my ex-wife should have the right to marry Olivia Wilde? You want a right that you would deny to women?

 

[Save_Ferris]

No i don't actually.

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight back. Just be nice about it. Love and tolerate the hell out of them. Address your points and say you have a right. I'm just saying you have to understand where they're coming from. Maybe go to church for a day to see their point of view, and understand that everyone always thinks they're doing the right thing.

Is that so hard? We aren't being evil...

 

[aronnax]

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight back. Just be nice about it. Love and tolerate the hell out of them. Address your points and say you have a right. I'm just saying you have to understand where they're coming from. Maybe go to church for a day to see their point of view, and understand that everyone always thinks they're doing the right thing.

Is that so hard? We aren't being evil...

It's a little hard to care about the religious people's views when how they treat me go from insultingly condescending (But I want to save your soul) to down right barbaric (Out gay demon, out! Back to the hell you spawned from).

Imagine if I went around to religious people spouting anti-religious, anti-Christian views and become insultingly condescending (But I just want to enlighten you) to down right barbaric (Organised religion should be banned and persecuted for its stupidity)

 

[holy king]

What right is being denied? Marriage is a union between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. .

http://www.theonion.com/articles/typo-in-proposition-8-defines-marriage-as-between,6506/

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

 

[useless]

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight back. Just be nice about it. Love and tolerate the hell out of them. Address your points and say you have a right. I'm just saying you have to understand where they're coming from. Maybe go to church for a day to see their point of view, and understand that everyone always thinks they're doing the right thing.

Is that so hard? We aren't being evil...

How can I be nice to people that openly want to limit what rights i have? I tolerate them, yet they do not tolerate me (as they want to reduce the rights of all LGBTers by refusing them the ability to marry who they want; a consenting adult of the same sex).

Why should I go to a church? What would I do, sit there and wait for them to babble on about Prop 8 and how the gays want to "re-define marriage" and such? Awkwardly twiddle my thumbs as they undoubtedly go on about the "Gay Agenda/Lobbyists" or "Activist judges"?

So what if they think that they're doing the "right thing"? No doubt the racists thought they were genuinely doing the "right thing" when they supported anti-miscegnation.

Maybe you're not being evil but it results in discrimination against a group of people and that is genuinely evil, regardless if it's motivated by religious beliefs or not.

This isn't about LGBTers asking for "more rights", this is about applying the law equally, allowing LGBTers to marry a consenting adult of the same gender.

 

[Cutlass]

Knowing several gay and lesbian couples (including my boss, who's been with his partner for 18 years. It's still a phase though, right?), I hope this eventually results in same-sex marriage made legal here in FL as well.

I don't understand the religious arguments against it, especially considering a number of religions, including several Christian ones, not having a problem with it. Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality, it was about a bunch of drunken morons being d*cks to angels. Even if you took the angels out of the equation, you have a bunch of drunken morons partying around alcohol and torches in an area where the soil is extremly combustable. Yet, after an incident that wipes out two cities, homosexuality is seen as the sin, but wine is served in church?

The procreation argument is stupid. The human race is in no danger of underpopulation. If anything, couples who can't/don't procreate are doing us a favor, and they aren't nearly numerous enough to be a threat.

Finally, granting equal rights to consenting adults does not push anything on anyone else. No priest will ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage any more than he is forced to perform a straight one.

Sooner or later, same-sex marriage will be passed by Congress nation-wide, and people will continue to complain, probably like they did when Civil Rights and Women's suffrage were passed, also by Congress.

The thing is that, ultimately, it's not a religious argument at all. It's just dressed up in religion to make it sellable. There are always people with prejudices and always people who discriminate. They need a reason and a target to do what they would choose to do in any event.

 

[useless]

^ This. The disturbing thing is that the reasons used against Same-sex marriage are VERY similar to the ones used against inter-racial marriage:

It's not "natural".
Think of the "family".
It's "re-defining marriage"
"They can always marry one of their own".
Socities morals will decrease etc.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Just want to point one thing out: We don't hate you guys. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

[useless]

You don't hate LGBTers you just don't want them to be able to marry who they want? How doesn't that translate into hate, or at the very least a degree of disliking said group?

 

[Ajidica]

Just want to point one thing out: We don't hate you guys. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

And that makes everything better?

 

[El_Machinae]

Just want to point one thing out: We don't hate you guys. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Hey, I understand, I feel the same way about those who worship a blood god Most Christians are perfectly nice folk, and if they want to worship a god that's ordered the death of babies, that's their business. I wish them the best. Of course, I'll still disapprove of many Biblical teachings (and the lifestyles associated therewith), but I'll obviously love the people.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Hey, I understand, I feel the same way about those who worship a blood god Most Christians are perfectly nice folk, and if they want to worship a god that's ordered the death of babies, that's their business. I wish them the best. Of course, I'll still disapprove of many Biblical teachings (and the lifestyles associated therewith), but I'll obviously love the people.

Not to mention that the God of the Bible did mass genocide to everyone except for a handful of people that he happened to like (that big flood).

 

[El_Machinae]

Not to mention that the God of the Bible did mass genocide to everyone except for a handful of people that he happened to like (that big flood).

Ehn, I don't mind that. I happen to like shooting stars, even though they've killed off a great number of my (indirect) ancestors. People can like stuff that kills people if they want.

... [toodles off to a gun forum ...]