4 replies to this topic

[foxyeisenhower]

http://www.prop8tria...-circuit-panel/

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010.

I don't know if any of you are following the legal battle over the ban on gay marriage in California, but it's interesting because it usually sparks heated arguments over the sanctity of marriage despite that not even being the issue at stake. No matter what your views on the LGBT community are, Prop 8 specifically singled out a group of people (a minority) and took away rights that they had before the bill, which is basically unprecedented. This means that any court cases/rulings/appeals during this case can and will be used as precedent, probably to further the civil rights movement, maybe to allow fish to marry dogs.

most people have extreme views of this subject and although one side has considerably less legal standing, they also have more than enough zeal and support to get their way and if it goes to the Supreme Court it would still probably be a toss up. I'll just ask that you try to be nice in this thread and respect people even if they don't respect you.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

Well I could lie and say that I support Prop 8... but then that would be a lie. I don't really feel that any marriage, regardless of circumstance, should have legal standing at all. Let religious and other institutions do whatever they want. They can go ahead and police themselves for all I care. As far as I'm concerned, government should treat all couples as civil unions regardless of the sex of the couple. Different groups keep on trying to "own the institution of marriage". Let these groups (it should be noted that I mean all groups) keep their version of "marriage" to themselves, and in turn do not recognize any marriage at all. Do I see this as an actual possibility? Nope. There are many on both sides that would hate this since it's kind of like a slap in the face to everyone. So in the end, I suppose I support gay marriage though I cringe to even acknowledge "marriage" at all.

With regards to the possibility of this going to the Supreme Court... this is an issue I honestly don't want to see going before the Supreme Court (at least not now). There is a lot to lose, and a good deal of uncertainty as to what the outcome would be. Gay marriage is still relatively new. I don't want to see it getting quashed now for all the wrong reasons. It's a tough enough battle already... I wouldn't want it to become tougher because of what nine have to say.

...maybe to allow fish to marry dogs...

More power to 'em.

Edited by 01001111, 08 February 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Katzilla]

In the great words of the wise Jimmy McMillan: "If you wanna marry a shoe, I'll marry ya".

[foxyeisenhower]

your views on non-marriage are a little too radical to understand but that's not the issue here

There is a lot to lose, and a good deal of uncertainty as to what the outcome would be. Gay marriage is still relatively new. I don't want to see it getting quashed now for all the wrong reasons. It's a tough enough battle already... I wouldn't want it to become tougher because of what nine have to say.

It's true that there have been concerns over the effect of any Supreme Court decision on this issue, but the supporters of the ban have been extremely adamant about pushing this to as high a court as they can, still they'll need 4 justices to agree to hear it

It wasn't Arnold Schwazenegger at least

Pretty sure he supports overturning Prop 8

"

After Judge Walker issued his decision, a stay on his ruling was also issued that kept Prop 8 in effect as a law until such time that another court struck it down, meaning California’s same-sex couples have not been able to wed since his ruling. If the 9th Circuit panel or another court body issues a stay, same-sex couples cannot wed. Many legal observers expect a stay if Prop 8 is struck down, however it’s not entirely certain."

The ideal situation for gay couples is that Prop 8 is declared unconstitutional and dropped with no stay so they can marry the people they want to again

In the great words of the wise Jimmy McMillan: "If you wanna marry a shoe, I'll marry ya".

was my joke not entirely clear, fish marrying dogs was a facetious slippery slope argument that people have used many times against the progress of the civil rights movement
its dumb because it makes just as much sense when applied to preventing interracial marriage, preventing homosexuals from enlisting openly, or preventing women from inheriting property and each time the judges who supported change were accused of activism

Double post merged. -Trebor

Edited by Trebor, 08 February 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

If I made too much sense, it wouldn't be very fun would it?

your views on non-marriage are a little too radical to understand but that's not the issue here

There is a lot to lose, and a good deal of uncertainty as to what the outcome would be. Gay marriage is still relatively new. I don't want to see it getting quashed now for all the wrong reasons. It's a tough enough battle already... I wouldn't want it to become tougher because of what nine have to say.

It's true that there have been concerns over the effect of any Supreme Court decision on this issue, but the supporters of the ban have been extremely adamant about pushing this to as high a court as they can, still they'll need 4 justices to agree to hear it

Indeed. I'd like it thrown out. The fact it was overturned in California was a nice little victory and a favorable precedent. Of course, as you say, as soon as it was overturned the ball entered the court of prop 8 supporters. This system of appeals... can't they just get rid of it from the very first moment I find it inconvenient? Or better yet, can't I just become a dictator?

With regards to what I said not being the issue, I agree. My method simply sends a clear message that the rights that come along with marriage are purely secular, and deprives any religious institution of ammo when the claim is made that marriage is being trampled under foot. It may not be the issue, but part of the problem here to begin with is the obfuscation between marriage in secular terms and marriage in religious terms. By distinguishing the two, it is possible to both provide same-sex couples with the same rights (arguably anyway, though I can understand how one might make a valid claim to the contrary, and indeed hope somebody here will) and to provide a certain amount of protection to the institution of marriage as defined by religion by making it harder for the law to touch. It's a win-win that makes everybody upset... yay
So while it certainly may not be the issue, it can be argued that the adoption of such a policy (not gonna happen, of course) would result in the issue becoming a non-issue, at least from a legal perspective. A lot of work would still have to be done as far as tolerance is concerned... though let's face it, getting the law changed (regardless of method) isn't going to suddenly change how people feel about gay marriage or homosexuality in general. Only time and talk can do that.

In any case, you're quite correct in pointing this out...

...Prop 8 specifically singled out a group of people (a minority) and took away rights that they had before the bill...

Funny what you can get away with... mind you, this remains to be ultimately seen.