Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

But then again a woman can't self-determine to marry a tree

---

Right...because a tree is exactly the same thing as a human being.Why is it the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately makes you think of being sexually gratified by foliage? Why is it you never seem to think of this when the thought is of having sex with someone of the opposite sex? Just what is it about being gay that leads to sex with plants that being straight doesn't?Be specific.

quote:

---

The problem is that definitions often have very narrow interpretations for reasons of clarity.

---

Indeed.And nobody will be confused by the statement that Jane and June are "married." Everybody understands that "marriage" is a description of a relationship, not a description of the genitalia of the participants.

quote:

---

If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses, then what does that make you?

---

Morally correct.Refusal to accept bigotry is not bigotry. Refusal to accept intolerance is not intolerance.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects or prohibits marriage

---

Incorrect. You need to read Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is defined as a fundamental right.Too, you need to read the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. I am not here to do your homework for you.

quote:

---

Perhaps it could be construed as one of those "self-evident truths"

---

No, "self-evident truths" are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The DoI is not a legal document with respect to the law of the land in the United States. The Constitution is.Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. Go look them up.

quote:

---

So it seems that one would first have to find a reasonable way to irrevocably show that marriage is a basic right in the first place.

---

Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.

quote:

---

The other approach is that it should be delegated to the states to decide for themselves, which, to me, seems like it best summarizes the spirit of the Constitution.

---

So when the SCOTUS overruled the states with regard to interracial marriage, they were wrong to do so?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overtun the will of the people?

---

​

We can't simply overturn something because some people don't like it.

---

That's not an answer. It's a very simple question:Was the SCOTUS wrong to decide that the will of the people and the law of the states were to be overturned because marriage is a fundamental right?At any rate, you're arguing the opposite of what is being discussed. The SCOTUS didn't overturn the miscegenation laws because the people didn't like it. They overturned the miscegenation laws despite the people not liking it.

quote:

---

Besides, there are a lot of things that I don't personally like, but it may be legal as per SCOTUS.

---

So why do you feel it appropriate to deny citizens their rights?Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.

quote:

---

And that should come down to a vote since We the People means something.

---

Indeed. "We the People" have decided that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what we are all allowed to do. It doesn't matter if the majority of people want to enslave blacks. They are not allowed to do so because the Constitution says they're not.Why do you have such a problem with the Constitution? It seems you only want to abide by it when it suits you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to bluescat48:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would their institution be threatened. They would still be married under the law only the law would extend to previously denied couples. I still cannot see what the difference would be or why heterosexual couples would lose anything if homosexual couples could marry.

---

​

You would have to ask them, not me.

---

Huh? You were the one saying that there was a "threat" and a "plight." Are you now saying you can't even describe what that "threat" and "plight" are?Then how do you know it exists? And why do these phantom "threat" and "plight" get to deny citizens their rights?

quote:

---

What they say they lose from legalizing "gay marriage" may not be reasonable to you.

---

But what would be lost? You've gone on and on about this, but you have yet to come up with a single example of anything that would be lost. How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported?Be specific.

quote:

---

The only way to settle this "gay marriage" issue is have a referendum on it and let people vote.

---

Right, because the majority have always respected the fundamental rights of the minority.If the majority would vote to protect the minority, then there wouldn't be any need for a vote because it would already be a reality. Rights aren't very useful if the only time you get them is when nobody is thinking of taking them away in the first place.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz responds to Nemesis Juggernaut:

quote:

---

Many, if not most, people can't afford to simply move to another state for economic reasons. Based on your logic, the Lovings only had to move to another state to be able to live in peace.

---

Indeed. In fact, the Loving v. Virginia decision specifically pointed this out as an invalid argument. Fundamental rights are not beholden to borders but follow you everywhere you go. Saying that they simply needed to move somewhere where their marriage wouldn't land them in jail is not a legitimate response.It seems NJ hasn't bothered to read the case law on the subject. But then again, he holds the Constitution is such contempt that it isn't surprising: The Constitution is only good when it supports him. When it denies him, it's just a piece of paper.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Isn't that the attitude of a bigot? Where do you get your moral authority, bigot?”HM

Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's gay and he wants to marry Clifford, the next door neighbor's son. You stop to help them out by telling them that they are immoral and have no good reason to feel that way. In fact, you tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so close-minded, selfish, and stupid.And then you say, "What's the matter with you people, anyway? You're acting like a couple of degenerate heterosexual bigots."Mrs. Smith slowly raises her head from her knees and says, "You better get your queer ass back on out that Hershey Highway, son, before I get out my pig sticker. What right do you have to tell me what is moral and what is not?"Rrhain, you need to explain why, in the case of "same-sex marriage," a minority can be more moral than a majority. So far all we get from you are your passionate opinions. If you could come down from your self-righteous perch and touch the ground of reality you would know that gravity and marriage are two things that most people regard as being purely NATURAL. Gravity doesn't pull up and marriage doesn't unit two members of the same sex. I've got a lot of empirical evidence on that to show you. You got nuthin' but opinion.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : fussing

Degree of interest ranges from “this would be handy” to “I fear for the Republic, Obi Wan.” When it comes to repressing self-determination we need to be a bit closer to the latter. This has be expressed down thread several times. The Gov recognizes that children only read the bit in a contract about seeing spot run, therefore, not getting the gist of what it was that they were signing. The number of noncompliance suits was just enormous. The solution was “Age of Consent (informed consent) Doctrine”. Under what doctrine do we prevent Gays from getting married? Gay folk enter into other contract types without interference, so there isn’t a more general precept to work from. Gov and time have both established that there is no interest in recognizing the genders of the parties to the marriage contract.Maybe you are right, the Republic might fall if we allow Gays to marry, but at this point the burden of proof has shifted to you. (If one copies and pastes from the peek one gets the format too.)Rrhain, bless him, has done it well a hundred times to no apparent end. The “Word to the Wise Doctrine” doesn't seem to be in effect this week. Do you also call the moves on both sides of the checker board? No one does not understand the fear of change. Aristophanes, exactly 6001 years ago today, complained about the vulgarity of youth regarding Hadrian’s pipers and had a wall built. They get over it. Nobody wins that way.One in not a bigot because they get the willies when they see two men kissing. The number of gay men and women who get the willies seeing me kiss a woman is only exceeded by the number of straight women who do. Why do I always get teary-eyed when kissing a beautiful girl? It’s the mace.One becomes a bigot when on begins to contemplate controlling that behavior.Allowing gay marriage requires no action from the objectors. A bit of tit-for-tangent: My moral outlook is based on the axioms that all men are equal, there are only individual rights, and that fair has nothing to do with feelings. (Again, there’s more, but I like to keep it snappy.) If you don’t think that last one doesn’t get me in trouble with the simpleton left (did I just ask for it or what?) you’re sorely deluded. I’m afraid I’d have to legalize prostitution and incest (among consenting adult). I just can’t see the actual harm. And my sister is, like, totally hot.Polygamy, on the other hand leads to an untenable situation in cases of divorce. It is not possible for a court to disentangle an emotionally charged situation ” property settlement is their standard , remember ” where part “A” wants to cleave only part “B”, but not part “C”. While part “B” wants to keep part “C”. And the guy on his rear . said, “Oh dear”. (Johnny Cash) But that one doesn’t take it as a good thing might very well indicate that words are flexible ” more so than we. Automatic cosigners are a lot more attractive. It is highly unlikely that there will be any fallout from gay marriage at all. But I could be wrong. Look what those pipers did to Scotland.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Hoot Mon responds to Rrhain:I do not want to speak for Rrhain, but WOW, Hoot Mon...what a complete gem of a response. So you come up with a hypothetical situation to support your bigotry...how nice.But, of course, you also got your own make-believe bullshit wrong. Christ, Hoot Mon, as it turns out, you can't even make up a valid excuse.See, here's you error. It doesn't matter how they (your fictitious parents) feel. It's what they do that makes them potentially problematic. You see, they have every right to feel distraught, if that's how the truly feel (who knows, Hoot Mon...maybe they're not actually bigoted homophobes like yourself, and would be quite accepting of their sons personal choices...but I digress). What would make them bigots would be something along the lines of what you, Catholic Scientist, and Nemesis Juggernaut want to do. Namely, trying to deny them their Constitutional rights. You know, your constant use of the term "Hersey Highway" is really quite offensive. It's hard to accept you at your word of not being a homophobe when you repeatedly use this term? But, hey, you certainly have the right to use it... But we're not talking about morals. More moral...what sort of crap is that? Look, this is about Constitution rights, not morality. I certainly don't want to speak for Rrhain, but what a complete pile of shit, Hoot Mon. You have to be acting this way on purpose just for the sake or argument. I mean, nobody can be this completely brain-dead and still function. Either that or you have not actually bothered to read anything that Rrhain has written.Which is it Hoot Mon? Have you read (and comprehended anything at all) that Rrhain has written, or are you functionally illiterate and apparently "running" on just your brain stem? You're comparing Gravity with marriage? How strange. Why is it that your side always makes these bizarre comparisons. Sex with trees, sex with children, sex with animals...and now we're told that marriage and gravity are the same basic thing.And yet you suggest the Rrhain "touch the ground of reality" How strange. Ha...you said "unit"...you must be a closest homosexual. Let's see...you get to define marriage as being between one man and one women, and then you get to claim it as evidence that to members of the same sex can't get married. And this seems like "emperical evidence" to you? Well, I guess so...if you ignore the numerous Constitutional citations (via SCOTUS and other Court rulings) the he (Rrhain) has provided for you...that apparently either you did not bother to read...or that you read, but are completely incapable of understanding...or you do understand them but just want to take a big ole dump on our Constitution.Why do you hate America so much?

Your side of the argument most certainly is. Take a look at Message 410. Rrhain claims he's: ”HM

I haven't tried to deny them Constitutional rights in two ways...First, I haven't done anything to deny them rights
Second, they don't have a Constitutional right for what I am supposedly denying them in the first place. Really? Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people.What a stupid thread this is.

No just treated the same way. Bigotry is the same no matter what group is being discriminated against solely buy perceived differences.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

So you do not support or agree in any way with DOMA? You have not yet voted for, nor will you ever vote for, any laws that limit marriage and/or redefine marriage as a union between one man and one women only, effectively denying the rights of homosexuals to marry whom the choose? You do support the rights of homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex? Funny, I did not get that impression from anything you wrote. My bad, sorry for the confusion. Really? The Constitution doesn't apply to homosexuals...is that what you're saying here? The 9th and 14th Amendments are not applicable to homosexuals.
Here are the 9th and 14th Amendments as read by most poeple I know, and with special yellow highlighted portions that apparently reflect how Catholic Scientist (and some others) see/read them.): Ya know...I never noticed those last sentences before. Why did you wait so long to point this point this out to us, Catholic Scientist? Hell, you could have saved us from over 400 wasted postings. Well...actually...no...for the same reasons I mentioned numerous times to Hoot Mon. Please, go read Message 384 by me, and then for a somewhat more calm explanation, go ahead and read Message 386 by NoseyNed as well.Why are you guys so seemingly incapable of reading and actually understanding what the words mean?Edited by FliesOnly, : To provide links to previous messages

Then I suppose men discriminate against women, and vice versa, in public restrooms.Really, bluescat, this bigotry/discrimination thing has gone too far. At our ages we ought to be more worried about discrimination against the elderly who wouldn't know a Hershey Highway from a hot fudge sundae.”HM

I am against discrimination of any group, all humans are of the same species, superficial differences shouldn't matter, all should be equal.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

No, I haven't voted for any laws that limit marriage. I think that DOMA defines marriage correctly, but I not as sure about the powers reserved to the state part. I do not support the right of right of homos to marry. That isn't active denial of a right though.I'm not doing anything to deny homos rights. Nope.I'm saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to marriage within the same sex. The aren't excuded from anything that the 9th and 14th refer too. Marriage has limitations that apply to everyone. In a similiar way, NJ and HM's comparisons don't say that gays and gravity, or trees or whatever, are basically the same thing. I was wondering the same thing about you.