Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

[JollyRoger]

A certain type of holiness is required for proper consummation of a marriage.

 

[civver_764]

Why would we do that, though?

Seriously, what does marriage today in the USA have anything to do with how other cultures approached it throughout history? Its not like we can suddenly change our culture and embrace something utterly foreign to how we have been doing things for the last several hundred years.

So we shouldn't have embraced integration or miscegenation? How about the abolition of slavery or giving women the right to vote? It was part of our culture, after all.

 

[Ajidica]

Writing a letter on paper then mailing it simply isnt 'utterly foreign' to writing it on a screen then sending it with a button. Please.

Ignoring gender in legal marriage isn't 'utterly foreign' compared to how it is now.

In fact, its the same exact action, just modernized a bit to be made easier and more efficient.

And now legaly it is even more efficient, the government doesn't have to bother confirming that the people aren't the same gender and they get extra revenue!

Not really comparable...at all, to considering what anicent mayans may have done in regards to marriage and how it applies today (i.e. not at all).

Why are the opinions of the ancient mayans less valid then the religously inspired views that you hold toward marriage, which is a religous concept anyhow.

 

[MobBoss]

Ignoring gender in legal marriage isn't 'utterly foreign' compared to how it is now.

Yeah....it is. Its certainly vastly moreso than snail mail vs email.

If it werent, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

And now legaly it is even more efficient, the government doesn't have to bother confirming that the people aren't the same gender and they get extra revenue!

Actually, its less efficient...they have to go back and reprint all those forms that indicate man/woman. Think of the cost!!

Why are the opinions of the ancient mayans less valid then the religously inspired views that you hold toward marriage, which is a religous concept anyhow.

Perhaps because their civilization is dead? Just guessing there...

 

[.Shane.]

Regardless of the finding, plan on this going all the way up to SCOTUS for final review. This is merely just another stepping stone on the way there.

2) A betting man always bets on the Court to punt difficult Constitutional issues when they can punt them, safely, with a ruling on standing. My bet is on the Punt.

Agreed, MB. Illram, punt to the SC or do you think the SC will also punt? If so then does that make it the law of the land or only applicable to CA?

EDIT: I have to stress I find it holy, not merely legal. I don't even consider marriages by a justice of the peace to be true marriages.

Then since this would only affect "marriages" conducted and recognized legally, should I assume you don't object? Nothing in this will require churches to marry gay people (just as they are not required by law to marry anyone they don't want to... for example the Catholic church will not remarry divorced people).

Seriously, what does marriage today in the USA have anything to do with how other cultures approached it throughout history? Its not like we can suddenly change our culture and embrace something utterly foreign to how we have been doing things for the last several hundred years.

Sure we have. I could give you a laundry list of rights, beliefs, traditions that have changed over short periods of time. Additionally, simply being tradition, to me, is not a valid argument. Again, I could list a lot of traditions that we later decided were wrong, immoral, etc...

Note: You'd have to also define "sudden change". If you mean something that happens in less than a year, this would not be sudden. Gay marriage has been a significant social issue for at least a decade, arguably longer. Gay rights, of which this is a sub-issue has been around for decades. So, this would NOT be a sudden change.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but people come here to embrace our culture, not vice versa.

Yeah, that's why a stroll through Los Angeles feels just like a sunnier version of London.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, its less efficient...they have to go back and reprint all those forms that indicate man/woman. Think of the cost!!

Print? So we are still stuck in a technologically backward tradition. Guess electronic documents are just too sudden of a change to embrace.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Homosexuals can never procreate and thus the marriage can never be holy; it is unnatural and incompatible.

False. Male eggs and female sperm.

Sure, that requires artificial assistance, but artificial things aren't abominations; they are enhancements to life. Is a prosthetic limb an abomination? The internet? Heating and cooling? Heavens no.

Why would we do that, though?

Seriously, what does marriage today in the USA have anything to do with how other cultures approached it throughout history?

Looking beyond the US is more of a response to the traditional meaning of marriage being a man and a woman, since if we go beyond the 230 years of our nation, you get quite a few more meanings. Which translates as the "traditional" meaning of "one man and one woman" being complete and utter self-serving crap.

Now, as for how it pertains to the modern view of marriage in America, that's different. It is the popular view that marriage should be one man and one woman, at least for the time being.

But one can draw the conclusion that gay marriage will be legalised eventually. Even without looking at history; each generation is more liberal than the next in social views.

 

[.Shane.]

False. Male eggs and female sperm.

Sure, that requires artificial assistance, but artificial things aren't abominations; they are enhancements to life. Is a prosthetic limb an abomination? The internet? Heating and cooling? Heavens no.

Well, I've yet to meet a person who has Holy Cannoli's viewpoint who would also require a fertility test as part of the marriage license, or ban older people (who cannot procreate) from marrying, or would annual a childless marriage after X years.

 

[illram]

Agreed, MB. Illram, punt to the SC or do you think the SC will also punt? If so then does that make it the law of the land or only applicable to CA?

I think if anyone is most likely to punt it is the SC. The punt on standing is the more conservative, let's-not-rock-a-boat-we-don't-have-to-rock ruling. This is one of those issues, to me, and when there is that kind of low hanging fruit I think they take it. Of course, I would not mind having egg all over my face if they take up the issue and decide it favorably.

As far as what happens if everyone punts, Walker's opinion becomes the law of the land in CA and "persuasive precedent" in other jurisdictions, but not binding upon them. (I.e., other lawyers in other jurisdictions can cite it, but the Judge can completely ignore it if they want.) Also if the issue does wind up before the Ninth Circuit on the merits, say 20 years from now in a different case, they can overrule it if they want as it will remain a lower level decision.

With that said I have trouble with the idea that the voters can pass an amendment to the Constitution, have it challenged and defeated at the trial stage, and the Government can throw up its hands and say "we don't like the law, we aren't going to defend it, tough." While the supporters of Prop 8 did get one swing at it, they're still kind of screwed if they are then barred from an appeal. I cannot think of an analogous situation where a litigant has standing at one stage but then magically loses it because it is someone else's job to appeal. In a way, that is prejudicial and perhaps unfairly. It's mildly troubling that a voter backed amendment to our Constitution can be, to an extent, dependent upon the willingness of Government officials to defend it. What is the ethical duty of, say, the Attorney General or the Governor to defend laws voted in by the people to whom they swear an oath? What about the AG's ethical duty as a lawyer (we swore the same oath, after all) to zealously advocate for their client? (Is their client "The People?") (And I say this while completely disagreeing with Prop 8 and thinking it is utterly unconstitutional.) It's an interesting issue to think about and another layer of zaniness on California's direct democracy system.

 

[Left]

I'm against gay marriage because I belive it's a holy sacrament between a man and a woman who can potentially procreate.

Should there be fertility tests before marriage then? Should the elderly be allowed to marry?

EDIT: I have to stress I find it holy, not merely legal. I don't even consider marriages by a justice of the peace to be true marriages.

Is a marriage between two Hindus holy? Why should the state legislate what you find holy?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you are happy to refuse one right to give a right to another?

UHC is a misnomer for a stupid socialistic program. And gay marriage is a contradiction of terms. Neither is a right.

Yeah I did, you just ignored it. It's a right because people have a right to be treated equally.

And are you saying we shouldn't respect international agreements?

I don't give a crap about international agreements. As an anarchist, neither should you.

And if gay marriage is a right, the US isn't the only Western country to "Deny them of their rights." So does England and probably other countries.

And besides, I don't give a crap about the Bible. If you want to prove something should be done a certain way, give me a logical reason why it should be.

Yet I never claimed to try to prove my point of view here. That would be futile on an issue of ethics.

If only we could keep you to the same standard, Domination, we'd have much more profitable debates.

Yet I never claimed to have a logical argument. I just don't believe the government should recognize a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying to be a real marriage. That's it. Never said anything against their right to do so, I just don't prefer the government recognize it.

 

[.Shane.]

Yet I never claimed to have a logical argument.

Yes, let's not let trivial things like logic and reason cloud our judgment! Well played, young master.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, let's not let trivial things like logic and reason cloud our judgment! Well played, young master.

I fully admit that on this one issue my opinion is biased by my beliefs. I'm sure Mobboss can come up with some logical reason that we should not have gay marriage, but I don't pretend to have the logic to do so. I will say however, that doing so does not cause any great harm to gays. I support the traditional family structure. Period. That's just my belief.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just don't believe the government should recognize a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying to be a real marriage. That's it. Never said anything against their right to do so, I just don't prefer the government recognize it.

Why stop there? Why not prefer the view that the government not recognize any marriage?

 

[Traitorfish]

UHC is a misnomer for a stupid socialistic program.

I don't think you know what "misnomer" means.

I mean, ignoring the fact that you don't know what "socialist" means.

And gay marriage is a contradiction of terms. Neither is a right.

Firstly, "contradiction in terms" doesn't refer to something which you personally do not like, but to terms which are fundamentally incompatible, which same-sex marriage is clearly not, as evidence by the simple fact that same-sex marriages exist, including those recognised by the state.
Secondly, marriage has not been universally monogamous and heterosexual throughout human culture, so it is impossible for you to hold up your own particular traditional and declare it supreme and objective without resulting to either cultural supremacism or to solipsism.

 

[Arakhor]

You're also ignorant of British affairs, Domination, which is hardly surprising. Although we don't have explicit gay marriage in England, Scotland, Wales etc., we do have civil unions for homosexual couples, which have most if not all of the same legal protections as traditional marriage.

 

[Cutlass]

I fully admit that on this one issue my opinion is biased by my beliefs. I'm sure Mobboss can come up with some logical reason that we should not have gay marriage, but I don't pretend to have the logic to do so. I will say however, that doing so does not cause any great harm to gays. I support the traditional family structure. Period. That's just my belief.

Bigot laws are anti-American and unconstitutional. If you really were either a 'strict constructionist' or a 'libertarian', that would be the end of it as far as you were concerned. By opposing gay marriage you prove that you are not what you claim to be.

 

[Left]

Yes, let's not let trivial things like logic and reason cloud our judgment! Well played, young master.

Yet I never claimed to try to prove my point of view here. That would be futile on an issue of ethics.

Or even ethics. Or even an argument at all?

 

[Ajidica]

Domination, why should religion views on marriage be at all relevent when talking about legal marriages, ie: civil unions?
I'm for getting the state out of marriage entirely. You want to recieve the benefits of a marriage? Go fill out the paperwork at the courthouse. Father Brown doesn't cut it.