Heads up OC, the No on Prop 8 protests are coming to you

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226465331][quote author="WINEX" date=1226465154][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226464686][quote author="WINEX" date=1226464165][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?</blockquote>


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."



LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)</blockquote>


I'm sorry. I should have asked what I was interested in more clearly. I was interested in a US Supreme Court ruling that says that marriage is a right. None of the rulings you cited appear to do so.</blockquote>


I am a little confused. . .when the USSC describes marriage as a "basic civil right" and a "fundamental freedom", it seems like a fundamental right to me.</blockquote>


I'm at lunch at work right now, so don't have too much time. But a quick look at <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/13137/Skinner-v-Oklahoma.html">Skinner v. Oklahoma</a> shows that it was a case involving forced sterilization of felons. The key parts of the ruling certainly don't apply to homosexual marriage. From my link:

<em>

The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Skinner. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, found the "case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights." Douglas wrote, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." </em>



This is further clarified in the following quote from the same article:

<em>

Douglas concluded that "Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race--the right to have off-spring." The Court reversed the decision of the two lower courts.</em>



Homosexuals can marry people for the purpose of procreation. But procreation isn't possible in the type of marriage they are trying to force society to accept.



More later...
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226466000][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226465331][quote author="WINEX" date=1226465154][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226464686][quote author="WINEX" date=1226464165][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?</blockquote>


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."



LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)</blockquote>


I'm sorry. I should have asked what I was interested in more clearly. I was interested in a US Supreme Court ruling that says that marriage is a right. None of the rulings you cited appear to do so.</blockquote>


I am a little confused. . .when the USSC describes marriage as a "basic civil right" and a "fundamental freedom", it seems like a fundamental right to me.</blockquote>


I'm at lunch at work right now, so don't have too much time. But a quick look at <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/13137/Skinner-v-Oklahoma.html">Skinner v. Oklahoma</a> shows that it was a case involving forced sterilization of felons. The key parts of the ruling certainly don't apply to homosexual marriage. From my link:

<em>

The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Skinner. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, found the "case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights." Douglas wrote, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." </em>



This is further clarified in the following quote from the same article:

<em>

Douglas concluded that "Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race--the right to have off-spring." The Court reversed the decision of the two lower courts.</em>



Homosexuals can marry people for the purpose of procreation. But procreation isn't possible in the type of marriage they are trying to force society to accept.



More later...</blockquote>


Wait, you need to separate the two. In dealing with equal protection issue, a court must identify two things. .. whether the right at issue is a "fundamental" right and then whether the plaintiff(s) belongs in a protected class. Loving v. Virginia establishes that marriage (or the right to marry) is a fundamental right.



Next, you need to determine whether homosexuals are a "protected class". This is where view diverge. However, the California Supreme Court (as well as Mass.) have established that homosexuals are. Thus, any attempts by the government to deprive homosexual the right to marry is subject to strict scrutiny. Such a ban is only valid if:



"First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.



Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.



Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong."



The ban on homosexual marriage fails that test according to the California Supreme Court.
 
I just can't believe our gov't is involved in this crap at all. How do we have constitutional doctrine dictating a separation of church and state yet our gov't regulates A RELIGIOUS UNION. Marriage is a long-standing religious covenant between your spouse and God(s). If you do not believe in an invisible all-powerful being(s) then you should not be forced to marry.



All income tax language needs to be written without specific deductions for marriages. Marital status should not come into play.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226466563] The ban on homosexual marriage fails that test according to the California Supreme Court.</blockquote>


IrvineCommuter -



As I stated before, the SCOTUS has denied that there is a fundamental right to homosexual marriage and lower federal courts have interpreted the right to marry in Loving as arising out of the right to procreate, therefore any reliance on Loving or Skinner is completely misplaced in the case of homosexual relationships.



As for strict scrutiny, it's refreshing that someone on this board understands the nuance, but again, I think your analysis is over looking a determinative fact. The protected class analysis only applies to laws that fall under the California's constitution of equal protection. Prop 8 emphatically removes homosexual marriage from equal protection by amending the equal protection clause itself (Art. I Sec. 7). Therefore, when the California Supreme Court reviews the issue and interprets the meaning of the equal protection clause, they are bound to respect the express terms of constitution. Your argument cannot work because it amounts to an oxymoron: "the constitution is unconstitutional." Simply put: an amendment to the constitution is not subject to ANY LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. Look at the nature of lawsuits that have been launched to defeat Prop 8 ? none of them use your argument.



On Amendment v. Revision: note that the Supreme Court of California denied a petition employing the same argument to remove the proposition from the ballot in July of this year. Moreover, if you read the article you linked to (a blog which I previously linked to on this board) you will see that Mr. Carpenter believes the court will most likely deem it an amendment. If you read the articles Mr. Carpenter links to, you will see much more emphatic opinions.
 
All these legal terms, decisions, court rulings/finding, interpretations..... (see, as I said before I'll let the really smart lawyers argue this...because it is so convoluted to me)



For goodness sakes, can't we drill it down to something as simple as this:



I just want to be able to get married someday.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1226461426]

Am I "normal" enough?



<img src="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v229/1518/30/n597118468_6075.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>


Works for me!
 
<blockquote>All income tax language needs to be written without specific deductions for marriages. Marital status should not come into play</blockquote>


I totally agree with this statement. Why should the government receive more funds from any two people because they are married?



Every time I hear the politicians say they are for "family values" I want to ask them why do they continue to tax married folks at a higher rate than two single people.



I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a tax debate but why are there deductions for children? If a gay couple or straight couple are married and choose not to have children why should the government take more of their income?



The answer comes down to social engineering through the tax code often based on religious values. These social directives have been set by leaders based on religious values which scares the hell out of me. The state should be more liberal in accepting marriages for legal reasons and get off of the religious bent. If a certain religion does not accept homosexuality then a couple would not belong to that congregation and would not be able to be married in that church but could choose a church that does accept them or have a civilian marriage without any defined religious connotations.



Let the free market decide since churches are businesses and need to attract members.



Extream examples of lack of church/state seperation are the Muslim fundamentalists, or any fundamentalist religion for that matter.



Let me ask a simple question: If the religious basis is removed then why would anyone care if a gay couple marries? I look forward to an answer.



I still don't get it.
 
yeah, all...I was in AZ a few weeks ago and made sure to make a special trip up to Prescott to meet exsocal. I mean, after all, he IS the realtor that changed my mind about all realtors ! ;) It was a pleasure meeting he and his wife, and seeing their beautiful home with a view that's to die for. I brought my parents along for good measure, so he really got a dose of Trooper's family. This man has got more toys in his garage than you can shake a stick at !
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1226476917]Trooper actually looks better than that pix. :coolmad:

</blockquote>


Oh yes, I know. I'm married anyway. But it is still -1 for our team! %-P
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1226476625] Let me ask a simple question: If the religious basis is removed then why would anyone care if a gay couple marries? I look forward to an answer.</blockquote>


First off, I'm not sure why the motivations behind someone's opinion, whether religious, economic or make-believe, should be discounted so easily. Every person is entitled to their opinion regardless of its origins. One could argue that the belief that every person is entitled to equal rights is based on the religious belief that all men are created equal under God - should we discount the conclusion simply because you don't share the premise? The idea that secular beliefs are somehow superior to religious beliefs in the arena or ethics is beyond me. As far as I can tell, secular ethics have lead to some of the 20th century's worst disasters ( of course, I am not saying that religious ethics are therefore superior to secular ethics: there is plenty of blame to go around).



If you are looking for a secular argument, how about this: the state has a vested interest to insure there are sufficient offspring to power the economy/industry of society in the future. Where offspring are primarily the result of relationships between a man and a woman, and where society believes that the best place for a child to be reared is a familiar structure with a mother and father, the state therefore reserves a special distinction for such relationships to encourage the most efficient propagation of the race in furtherance of its own interest. All other relationships, unless destructive to society (i.e. underage or incest), are permitted but because they do not sufficiently contribute to the state?s goals, will not be encouraged or specially recognized.



Disclaimer: this is not necessarily my view. It?s simply a response to a question.



Also just an interesting tidbit ? Homosexuality was fiercely suppressed under atheistic Russia and currently suppressed by atheistic China (much more than in the US). The idea that suppression of homosexuality is solely based on religious views should be reconsidered.
 
<em>I don?t want to hijack this thread and turn it into a tax debate but why are there deductions for children? If a gay couple or straight couple are married and choose not to have children why should the government take more of their income?</em>



And to further that argument, if the powers that be think I'm sort sort of monster that shouldn't get married, and g-d forbid, have children.....then WTF am I paying taxes to support the schools ?



Oh, and I found a great youtube clip from the pastor of Saddleback that I'm going to throw up in a minute.
 
<em>If you are looking for a secular argument, how about this: the state has a vested interest to insure there are sufficient offspring to power the economy/industry of society in the future. </em>



Oh, honey....all I need is a little sperm, not a husband.



And have you considered, if g-d's plan might not have been to hatch us to CONTROL the world's population ?
 
<em>Trooper is still shaking her head she used the word sperm on IHB</em>



Anywho, here is apparently the pastor of OC's venerable Saddleback Church. I've listened to this clip and snipped out some statements he made and posted them below. I don't know why the person who posted it has a gripe with him, and keeps posting "Lies, Lies..."etc in text when he speaks... that's not what I'm concentrating on. I'm listening to his sermon and what he's saying. These are his WORDS.



- "The bottom line is, God gets pleasure out of watching you be you."

- You outta look at your shape: What am I wired to do? Why would g-d wire you to do something, and then not do it"

- Do you know that g-d smiles when you be you?"

- Bottom line is, g-d gets pleasure out of watching you be you. Why ? Because he made you."



Well, I couldn't have said it better myself.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
Threesheets



<blockquote>If you are looking for a secular argument, how about this: the state has a vested interest to insure there are sufficient offspring to power the economy/industry of society in the future. Where offspring are primarily the result of relationships between a man and a woman, and where society believes that the best place for a child to be reared is a familiar structure with a mother and father, the state therefore reserves a special distinction for such relationships to encourage the most efficient propagation of the race in furtherance of its own interest. All other relationships, unless destructive to society (i.e. underage or incest), are permitted but because they do not sufficiently contribute to the state?s goals, will not be encouraged or specially recognized. </blockquote>


Good logic, except,

"if the state is looking for sufficient offspring to power the ecomomy/industry of society in the future", then taking the states position to the extreme level why would they not mandate 2 or 3 or some specific number of children (opposite China's one child rule) to futher the economic viability of the state. It would help with the tax base and cure the social security shortfall in the long run.This is a slippery slope anytime the state gets involved in social engineering.



"society believes that the best place for a child is to be reared is a familiar structure with a mother and a father" If this is true are they looking at child abuse, divorce rates, and child abandonment that is prevelent within the "normal" family. Are you aware of the success of children reared in same sex homes? Can you show an example of studies of children raised in same sex households being harmed?



I respect your argument, but still feel that the main reason for the basis of many of our laws are religion based. I believe in freedom OF and FROM religion. That means that if you do not condone gay marriage then don't marry a person of your sex.



As far as devastation, war, and hatred caused by religion throughout history we really don't want to go there. Side note, I grew up in Hawaii and saw the results of what the Christians did to the "savages" by saving them.



"All other relationships, unless destructive to society (i.e. underage or incest), are permitted but because they do not sufficiently contribute to the state?s goals, will not be encouraged or specially recognized." My question is by not being encoraged or reconized how does that go against simply accepting other types of marriage. Is poligamy really bad if there are more women then men and it helps to establish enviornments that are more communal in lifestyle? Many cultures had communal ways of taking care of children prior to the formations of government.



Trust me, I wouldn't want more than one woman telling me what to do but others may. ;-)



As I say, too each his/her own.
 
<blockquote>yeah, all...I was in AZ a few weeks ago and made sure to make a special trip up to Prescott to meet exsocal</blockquote>


I met Trooper in person along with her family and we "did lunch" and checked out some local Victorian/Craftsman archeticture. I really appreciate that they took the time to drive 2 to 3 hours round trip to meet a stranger.



Keep in mind I am a gun toting, off roading, McCain supporting, redneck.



If she can accept me than I certainly can accept her.



If one looks for commonality with people then they open their experiences and widen their perspective on the world.



Damn, that sounds too squishey for me. :-)
 
Were you packin' heat and I didn't notice ? ;)



You and my Dad sure had the "red" state thing in common, but nice to see you are able too look "outside the box."



It was a pleasure meeting you.
 
<u>The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution</u> states : "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall and State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, <strong>Nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of it's laws."</strong>



<u>Article 1, Section 7, Part B of the California State Constitution</u> states : "A citizen or class of citizens may <strong>not</strong> be granted privilieges or immunities <strong>NOT GRANTED ON THE SAME TERMS TO ALL IT'S CITIZENS." </strong>



So, does this mean NO ONE can get married now ??! Sounds like it to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top