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

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Trooper" date=1226493126]<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.</blockquote>


Trooper, not to beat a dead horse but, the 14th Amendment means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, and to date, it has denied that homosexual marriage is a guaranteed right under the equal protection clause. To be blunt: when it comes to marriage, the federal constitution makes no distinction between polygamists and homosexuals (please do not read that I am comparing the two on any moral basis).



In terms of the California constitution, Prop 8 went on to qualify the exact clause you quoted. The Prop 8 language is the new section 7.5.
 
[quote author="three sheets" date=1226497156][quote author="Trooper" date=1226493126]<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.</blockquote>


Trooper, not to beat a dead horse but, the 14th Amendment means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, and to date, it has denied that homosexual marriage is a guaranteed right under the equal protection clause. To be blunt: when it comes to marriage, the federal constitution makes no distinction between polygamists and homosexuals (please do not read that I am comparing the two on any moral basis).



In terms of the California constitution, Prop 8 went on to qualify the exact clause you quoted. The Prop 8 language is the new section 7.5.</blockquote>


I have not been following my Constitutional law cases but I do not believe that the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter one way or the other. Thus, the issue is up for debate.



Remember that the taking down of the ban on interracial marriage first began in the state courts. The California Supreme Court had ruled such a ban unconstitution nearly twenty years before the Supreme Court's holding in Loving.



Even if the SCOTUS ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage as constitutional. . .that does not make it right. Before Brown v. Board, we had Plessy v. Ferguson. Before Loving v. Virginia, we had Pace v. Alabama. Both of those earlier precedents are now seen as dark blots in the Court's history.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226538872][quote author="three sheets" date=1226497156][quote author="Trooper" date=1226493126]<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.</blockquote>


Trooper, not to beat a dead horse but, the 14th Amendment means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, and to date, it has denied that homosexual marriage is a guaranteed right under the equal protection clause. To be blunt: when it comes to marriage, the federal constitution makes no distinction between polygamists and homosexuals (please do not read that I am comparing the two on any moral basis).



In terms of the California constitution, Prop 8 went on to qualify the exact clause you quoted. The Prop 8 language is the new section 7.5.</blockquote>


I have not been following my Constitutional law cases but I do not believe that the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter one way or the other. Thus, the issue is up for debate.



Remember that the taking down of the ban on interracial marriage first began in the state courts. The California Supreme Court had ruled such a ban unconstitution nearly twenty years before the Supreme Court's holding in Loving.



Even if the SCOTUS ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage as constitutional. . .that does not make it right. Before Brown v. Board, we had Plessy v. Ferguson. Before Loving v. Virginia, we had Pace v. Alabama. Both of those earlier precedents are now seen as dark blots in the Court's history.</blockquote>
Baker v. Nelson, 409 US 810. Look it up on wikipedia. I was careful to not say that the SCOTUS has "held" anything on the issue. In Baker, the court dismissed an appeal for want of a federal question. That dismissal constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of homosexual marriage. The lower federal courts have closely followed the precedent, in their mind, the issue is not open for debate.



Also, as stated before, the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas contains some dicta exactly on point.



To be completely honest, I have real problem with people equating the issue of homosexual marriage with the historical denial of interracial marriage or any other African American struggle. In Loving, the couple had their house stormed by the police in the middle of the night (the police were actually trying to catch the couple having sex, which was a separate crime) and took the couple to jail? TO JAIL. Even suggesting that homosexuals are experiencing anywhere near the same amount of discrimination simply because they are not afforded the right of a marriage license strikes me as demeaning to the plight of African Americans. I wonder if the reason African Americans have showed so much hostility to the issue has less to do with religion and more to do with an unwillingness to equate their plight with the plight of homosexuals. There was a conscience effort by the legislature to get rid of racism. The adoption of the post civil war amendments was specifically intended to irradiate the centuries of overt oppression of a race. When the court reviewed racially discriminatory laws, the court was looking through a lens of a seriously brutal history.



Clearly, we have been arguing whether this is legal or not. I cannot disprove your moral judgment, but I can disprove the assertion that, legally speaking, homosexuals have a fundamental right to marriage.
 
<em>"To be completely honest, I have real problem with people equating the issue of homosexual marriage with the historical denial of interracial marriage or any other African American struggle. In Loving, the couple had their house stormed by the police in the middle of the night (the police were actually trying to catch the couple having sex, which was a separate crime) <strong>and took the couple to jail? TO JAIL. Even suggesting that homosexuals are experiencing anywhere near the same amount of discrimination simply because they are not afforded the right of a marriage license strikes me as demeaning to the plight of African Americans.</strong>"</em> three sheets



************

Ah, but a quick internet search shows you this info:



In <u>Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)</u>, the Supreme Court heard a constitutional challenge to sodomy laws brought b<strong>y a man who had been arrested, but was not prosecuted, for engaging in **** sex with another man in his home.</strong>



The petitioners, medical technologist John Geddes Lawrence, then 55, and Tyron Garner (1967?2006),[2] then 31, were alleged to have been engaging in consensual **** sex in Lawrence's apartment in the outskirts of Houston between 10:30 and 11 p.m. on September 17, 1998 <strong>when Harris County sheriff's deputy Joseph Quinn entered the unlocked apartment, with his weapon drawn</strong>, <strong>arresting the two. </strong>



You really need to read up on Bowers and Lawrence three sheets. The gays were arrested in their homes and brought to jail as well.









<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas">Lawrence v Texas Wiki</a>
 
Trooper - I am well aware of those cases, but I am also well aware that the Supreme Court promptly slapped those laws down. The rational had nothing to do with marriage, it had to do with privacy. Now, homosexuals have an unequivical right to privacy. Privacy and marriage are two separate rights.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226466000]

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, "<strong>Marriage and procreation</strong> 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 <strong>marry</strong> people for the purpose of <strong>procreation</strong>. But procreation isn't possible in the type of marriage they are trying to force society to accept.



More later...</blockquote>


<em><sarcasm></em>



Um, I hate to break it to you, but -



1) A marriage licence is a pretty terrible fertility treatment.



2) A lack of a marriage licence is a terrible form of birth control.



By terrible I mean completely ineffective.



<em></sarcasm></em>



Marriage and procreation...two things that are rather easily separated. They often go together, but nothing requires it.
 
[quote author="caycifish" date=1226559410][quote author="WINEX" date=1226466000]

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, "<strong>Marriage and procreation</strong> 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 <strong>marry</strong> people for the purpose of <strong>procreation</strong>. But procreation isn't possible in the type of marriage they are trying to force society to accept.



More later...</blockquote>


<em><sarcasm></em>



Um, I hate to break it to you, but -



1) A marriage licence is a pretty terrible fertility treatment.



2) A lack of a marriage licence is a terrible form of birth control.



By terrible I mean completely ineffective.



<em></sarcasm></em>



Marriage and procreation...two things that are rather easily separated. They often go together, but nothing requires it.</blockquote>


That's alright. You aren't breaking anything to anyone. The ruling being sited as establishing marriage as a right did no such thing. It did say that procreation is a fundamental right, and that laws requiring sterilization of felons were unconstitutional. Society was different in 1942 than it is today. Had a similar ruling been made today, I feel confident that marriage wouldn't have been mentioned. Unfortunately it's not possible to reverse the degradation of societal norms. Which is just another reason why we shouldn't try to pretend that deviant relationships are normal...
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226566377][quote author="caycifish" date=1226559410][quote author="WINEX" date=1226466000]

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, "<strong>Marriage and procreation</strong> 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 <strong>marry</strong> people for the purpose of <strong>procreation</strong>. But procreation isn't possible in the type of marriage they are trying to force society to accept.



More later...</blockquote>


<em><sarcasm></em>



Um, I hate to break it to you, but -



1) A marriage licence is a pretty terrible fertility treatment.



2) A lack of a marriage licence is a terrible form of birth control.



By terrible I mean completely ineffective.



<em></sarcasm></em>



Marriage and procreation...two things that are rather easily separated. They often go together, but nothing requires it.</blockquote>


That's alright. You aren't breaking anything to anyone. The ruling being sited as establishing marriage as a right did no such thing. It did say that procreation is a fundamental right, and that laws requiring sterilization of felons were unconstitutional. Society was different in 1942 than it is today. Had a similar ruling been made today, I feel confident that marriage wouldn't have been mentioned. Unfortunately it's not possible to reverse the degradation of societal norms. Which is just another reason why we shouldn't try to pretend that deviant relationships are normal...</blockquote>


Who is to say what degrades society? For most of human history, slaves were seen as normal and part of life in society. Only in the past 150 to 200 years has "society" viewed slaves as bad. The SCOTUS's ruling in Loving and Brown were not the "norm" for its day.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226566377][The ruling being sited as establishing marriage as a right did no such thing. </blockquote>


IrvineCommuter is right - Loving v. Virginia established MARRIAGE as a fundamental right. The holding: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" I don't know how it could be any clearer.
 
[quote author="three sheets" date=1226569440][quote author="WINEX" date=1226566377][The ruling being sited as establishing marriage as a right did no such thing. </blockquote>


IrvineCommuter is right - Loving v. Virginia established MARRIAGE as a fundamental right. The holding: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" I don't know how it could be any clearer.</blockquote>


Please note that my comments were about Skinner v. Oklahoma.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226568393]

That's alright. You aren't breaking anything to anyone. The ruling being sited as establishing marriage as a right did no such thing. It did say that procreation is a fundamental right, and that laws requiring sterilization of felons were unconstitutional. Society was different in 1942 than it is today. Had a similar ruling been made today, I feel confident that marriage wouldn't have been mentioned. Unfortunately it's not possible to reverse the degradation of societal norms. Which is just another reason why we shouldn't try to pretend that deviant relationships are normal...</blockquote>


Who is to say what degrades society? For most of human history, slaves were seen as normal and part of life in society. Only in the past 150 to 200 years has "society" viewed slaves as bad. The SCOTUS's ruling in Loving and Brown were not the "norm" for its day.</blockquote>


Society as a whole makes that decision. And it appears that the mores of society in California as recently as last week are such that the people don't believe that gay marriage is a good thing.



That having been said, I don't think anyone could argue that society hasn't gone downhill since the 40's. We have become weak as a people. I believe the root of a lot of our problems is the fact that we have managed to absolve ourselves of all blame. If you are an alcoholic, it's a disease. If you are a criminal, you must have been raised in a bad environment. If you bought a home priced at 10x your annual income on a liar loan, you are a "victim" of greedy bankers.



It really goes on and on.



Until we can be honest with ourselves about our own failings, there isn't much hope for improvement of the human condition.
 
Just an FYI: No idea on how many plan to attend or anything else about it. I just spotted on a website I review. Lookie-loos might bog down traffic, so it might be wise to take an alternate route home tonight.



<em>No On Prop 8 Protest - Irvine, Thursday 11/13 4:30pm

Corner of Campus & Culver Drive, Irvine

Marching to Culver & Alton.</em>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top