Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[Sayonara]

I don't remember Adam and Eve getting married either, but take offense at the word "whore". Eve was Adam's "companion"

 

They were both whoring their wanton nakedness and strumpet-like lack of biblical morals by frolicking unmarried in front of all those talking animals.

[Mokele]

Let's not forget them riding on dinosaurs. Who of course used those razor-sharp teeth to eat pineapples.

[Sayonara]

So very wrong. Pineapples are an

. They used those teeth to eat wholesome godly bananas.

[Pangloss]

I don't remember Adam and Eve getting married either, but take offense at the word "whore". Eve was Adam's "companion"

 

You know, it's been a long time since Sunday School, but I think you're right. I believe the traditional view (which of course is what's really important to true believers) is actually that they were married. Their union (the part where he yanks a bone out of his ribs!) is often referred to as the "first wedding". But I don't think it ever actually comes right out and says it, although there is a bunch of generalized stuff right after the Adam's Rib parable about how women should obey their men and so forth.

 

Huh. Maybe Eve didn't screw up so bad after all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW, religion's influence doesn't appear to have vanished just yet. Here's a promo for a new NBC series starting next week, and I'm guessing most people who've seen it have no idea that "Kings" is the name of a chapter from the Bible, and that the story appears to be copying it precisely. Of course, in this case the story isn't Christian, exactly, but I imagine they'll be watching with interest. (So will I, actually. Some of that Old Testament stuff is pretty exciting!)

 

46AXq0er-Og

Edited March 8, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[tvp45]

I'm always astonished when Christians take a firm stand against gay marriage because of what the Torah (or Pentateuch) says. The primary prohibition is found in Leviticus 20 and the prohibition is clearly about anal sex (note "penetration" and "reception" mentioned, although this is not present in the original English texts) rather than homosexuality or gay marriage. So, even were one a firm believer in this law, it would be OK for gay couples to marry just so long as they promise no anal sex.

 

But, more disturbing is the fact that this law requires both parties (the penetrator and the receiver) to be killed without regard to age, consent, or circumstance. Thus, a strict constructionist Christian (just made that up) would find himself compelled to kill the child who had just been forcibly sodmized by a pedophile. Jewish common law, to be fair, does introduce mitigating circumstances that would presumably deal with this, but I gotta ask: Was God having a really bad day when she thought that one up?

[Sayonara]

Never underestimate the ability of people to reinterpret religious messages to justify their own personal prejudices.

[iNow]

Okay... Let's try to steer this conversation again on to the relevant topic. Under discussion by the court is whether or not a vote by the people in this manner is sufficient to remove rights from a minority. They are treating it almost purely as an academic exercise... The outcome rests on the procedural approaches taken to put this ban in place.

 

Did the folks supporting Prop 8 screw up and circumvent the correct procedures for implementing such a ban, or is what they did kosher and there is no reason to repeal the proposition?

 

Discuss.

[tvp45]

OK, on your terms.

 

The California Constitution clearly states that no class of citizens (insert "heterosexuals") may have privileges or rights which are not enjoyed by any others (insert "GLBTs").

 

The amendment (or revision, I have no idea of the difference) procedure, when done by initiative, seems to say that you must consider one thing at a time, i.e., no "twofers".

 

Therefore, if this is to be done by initiative, it seems the proper first step is to have a ballot initiative on whether GLBTs are citizens. Once the good folks of CA decide that GLBTs are not citizens, then the way is clear to deprive them of rights and/or privileges.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I think the big question is, what is marriage? If marriage means a union between a man and a woman, then both hetero and homosexuals have the same rights to any marriage they choose, and proposition 8 is a clarification of this. If marriage means between a union between any two people, then proposition 8 is a re-definition or ban -- taking away rights they had before the ban. For what its worth, I think that when the Constitution was written, a "housewarming" party for a gay couple trying to get married, would probably consist of pitchforks and torches. I think that the GLBT community is going through a lot of trouble for wanting the word "marriage", as opposed to simply asking for equal rights (which IMO a lot more people would be OK with).

[jackson33]

Okay... Let's try to steer this conversation again on to the relevant topic. Under discussion by the court is whether or not a vote by the people in this manner is sufficient to remove rights from a minority. They are treating it almost purely as an academic exercise... The outcome rests on the procedural approaches taken to put this ban in place.

 

Did the folks supporting Prop 8 screw up and circumvent the correct procedures for implementing such a ban, or is what they did kosher and there is no reason to repeal the proposition?

Discuss.

 

 

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040305.html

 

This article IMO, gives a perspective to both sides the California dilemma.

 

The question is whether the general rights 'to be recognized' is inherent or requires Constitutional clarification. Remember the SF mayor, accepted a Court decision, assuming then the authority to over ride what law already existed. If that is true, the decision made on a presumption of power, there were no rights given to begin with to be removed. Any person can go to a number of Indian Reservations or specific Churches, get married to their limits (same sex, multiple wifes etc) but recognition.rights cannot be transfered to their home States or in fact the State the reservation is in...

 

Prop 8, in my opinion holds no more weight than the SF mayor to alter law itself, or their Constitution. The SC is expected to uphold Prop 8, making a California amendment, almost a requirement for the State Legislature to move on, one way or another. While Arnold has said he would support an amendment in EITHER direction feeling it's their duty to act, this would be a good time for them to act. IMO, they are hoping the SC will rule against up holding Prop 8, allowing them to legislate w/o consequences...

[iNow]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040305.html

 

This article IMO, gives a perspective to both sides the California dilemma.

An interesting read, but since it was written almost 5 years ago, it's hard to use it to gain perspective on the topic being discussed here... namely, Prop 8.

 

 

The question is whether the general rights 'to be recognized' is inherent or requires Constitutional clarification.

I tend to disagree with this assessment. This is about more than whether or not a marriage (and yes, it's a marriage, not a union or whatever other semantic games people wish to play to avoid hurting the feelings of the ignorant)... it's about more than just whether or not the marriage between two people of the same sex should be recognized by the state.

 

As I have argued heavily in this thread and in others, it is about equality and fighting against the institutionalization of bigotry. To attempt to classify this as a mere "recognition" issue or something which can be "obtained on an Indian reservation" really misses the point. Sure, that is of peripheral importance, but the true heart of this battle is in our treatment of people, and whether we're willing to piss on the spirit on which this nation was founded and treat some citizens as second class, restricting them of rights enjoyed by others simnply because their sexual preference is not the majority position.

 

 

Any person can go to a number of Indian Reservations or specific Churches, get married to their limits (same sex, multiple wifes etc) but recognition.rights cannot be transfered to their home States or in fact the State the reservation is in...

Ergo, it's not really a marriage in any recognizable sense of the word, now is it?

 

 

 

To Mr Skeptic - I've repeatedly defeated your position that "both gays and heteros are only allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, so there's no discrimination" argument. That position is truly untenable and silly, and you know it. Simply repeating it doesn't suddenly make it any more relevant to the issues under discussion here. That position is implicitly discriminatory since there is no relevant or secular constitutional reason to allow such a division to continue. If you have nothing new to offer in support of your postion, I will ask that we don't go around in circles around this point YET again. You may as well be saying that those old laws preventing a black person from marrying a white person were not discriminatory because they applied equally to both whites and blacks.

[Dudde]

but the true heart of this battle is in our treatment of people, and whether we're willing to piss on the spirit on which this nation was founded and treat some citizens as second class, restricting them of rights enjoyed by others simply because their sexual preference is not the majority position.

 

Thanks, that's a good way of putting it.

 

The question is whether the general rights 'to be recognized' is inherent or requires Constitutional clarification

I urge you to place this sentence in a debate regarding something unrelated to the current conversation to see if it still holds water. Perhaps the issue regarding whether minorities should be allowed to vote, or if women should be able to dress the same as men - I don't see why a basic human right as already defined by the constitution should need further clarification.

[Mr Skeptic]

To Mr Skeptic - I've repeatedly defeated your position that "both gays and heteros are only allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, so there's no discrimination" argument. That position is truly untenable and silly, and you know it. Simply repeating it doesn't suddenly make it any more relevant to the issues under discussion here.

 

Well, you've repeatedly disagreed, I'll give you that much. However, repeatedly disagreeing isn't a good counterargument.

 

That position is implicitly discriminatory since there is no relevant or secular constitutional reason to allow such a division to continue.

 

You simply disregard any relevant secular constitutional reasons that are given, and continuously claim there are none. The simplest of these, that I again mentioned in the very post that you replied to, is that the word "marriage" means between a man and a woman. While you have indeed shown that there have been same-sex unions in the past, I don't believe you ever showed that these were called "marriage".

 

In any case, do I have the right to marry a parrot and get tax benefits for it? Surely even you must agree that we can't have marriage meaning any kind of union?

 

While we're at it, another relevant secular reason is same-sex couples can't have children with each other, something which heterosexual couples can/could in general do (and are more likely to than same-sex couples are to adopt children, I think), and which I believe is (for better or worse) figured into some of the laws regarding marriage. And yes, a better way to do that would be to have any laws that assume marriage will result in children, instead be about children than about marriage.

 

In any case, I don't think you thoroughly debunked either of these, and especially the one about definition of marriage. I think instead you assumed that you could make statements without backing them up, and when I questioned them and even gave counterexamples, you wanted me to have the burden of proof of disproving your statements, rather than you having the burden of proof of proving your own statements, such as disproving any counterexamples. As I understand it, in this forum whoever goes about making statements is expected to back them up if they get challenged, not the other way around.

 

If you have nothing new to offer in support of your postion, I will ask that we don't go around in circles around this point YET again.

 

Same to you.

 

You may as well be saying that those old laws preventing a black person from marrying a white person were not discriminatory because they applied equally to both whites and blacks.

 

I've never seen any definition of marriage that excludes interracial marriage, and even if there were such, it is not common usage. As such, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman (aka, the one you are responding to) does not at all apply to interracial marriage (unless you try to define blacks as sub-human, as I believe they did during the slave trade era, in which case it is still not the definition of marriage that is the problem).

 

---

 

On a different note: this is about more than equal rights. Why are they trying to take over the definition of marriage (or are they?) rather than asking for equal rights? The word "marriage" does not have anything to do with any rights... shouldn't they be asking for a union that gives them equal rights, whatever it may be called?

[Dudde]

In any case, do I have the right to marry a parrot and get tax benefits for it? Surely even you must agree that we can't have marriage meaning any kind of union?

 

While we're at it, another relevant secular reason is same-sex couples can't have children with each other, something which heterosexual couples can/could in general do (and are more likely to than same-sex couples are to adopt children, I think), and which I believe is (for better or worse) figured into some of the laws regarding marriage.

 

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

 

The Merriam Webster dictionary doesn't seem to have any problem changing the definition to include same sex couples, I don't see what a definition should have to do with it. Marrying a parrot would be against the law if I'm not mistaken, as you can't do inter-species, however inter-gender relations are not banned by law...yet.

 

Also, there are a large majority of married couples that produce children, but there are also a huge number that do not produce any offspring, and probably just as many non-married couples that produce children. I've seen several same-sex couples who adopt children, and I think some of those children were definitely more open minded and intelligent that a lot of man-woman parental unit children. I know 10 year olds who are prejudiced against gays, blacks, catholics and school because of their heterosexual parents. I don't see how that could possibly be more constructive than having two mothers, and it's definitely got to beat being passed from foster family to foster family so they can get the extra money for giving you a room and ignoring you all the time.

[jackson33]

An interesting read, but since it was written almost 5 years ago, it's hard to use it to gain perspective on the topic being discussed here... namely, Prop 8.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

 

 

A brief history of the ongoing issue in California. Click on Prop 22, well down the article under referendum, which was the Prop 8, in the 2000 California Election....

[scrappy]

Well, I think the big question is, what is marriage? If marriage means a union between a man and a woman, then both hetero and homosexuals have the same rights to any marriage they choose, and proposition 8 is a clarification of this. If marriage means between a union between any two people, then proposition 8 is a re-definition or ban -- taking away rights they had before the ban. For what its worth, I think that when the Constitution was written, a "housewarming" party for a gay couple trying to get married, would probably consist of pitchforks and torches. I think that the GLBT community is going through a lot of trouble for wanting the word "marriage", as opposed to simply asking for equal rights (which IMO a lot more people would be OK with).

I think you've captured it here. While I stand very far to the left on most political issues, I remain unconvinced that the accepted definition of marriage should be changed for the LGBT people. I think they should get their equal rights to state-sanctioned civil unions. But I also hold that marriage is strictly a civil union between one man and one woman. I see no reason to change that definition for the gays, especially if they could get civilly united legally (along with the polygamists, necrophiliacs, and other unorthodox groups).

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic - Other laws we have don't apply to parrots, either. Parrots aren't charged with murder, nor or they charged with theft for stealing a cracker. They are birds, jackass. We're talking about laws related to humans, and you've once again fallen into the slippery-slope fallacy. "Next thing you know, they'll be sodomizing babies!"

 

And, if you think this issue is about a "word," then I find you sorely lacking in both perspective and understanding. I have nothing more to say, as I think that is a ridiculously stupid argument. The only thing you have going for you is that it should not be allowed because that's not the traditional sense in which the word is used. Give me a break.

 

Gay marriages have been going on in the christian church since the 1100s. If you want a traditional definition, I suggest you stop limiting your population sample to the last 200 years and gain some goddamned perspective about human rights and equality.

 

I don't know what else to say on this. What a stupid ****ing argument. "It's about a word. If they just call it a non-marriage partnership, I'll be okay with it, as that way I can keep implicitly grouping them as different from me."

 

 

I'll back off this thread for a bit. I'm enormously frustrated and disheartened right now, and I don't want to let my passions on this topic ruin the otherwise cordial feel of the board.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As I understand it, in this forum whoever goes about making statements is expected to back them up if they get challenged, not the other way around.

Feel free to use the report feature on any assertions you think I've made and failed to support.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I see no reason to change that definition for the gays, especially if they could get civilly united legally (along with the polygamists, necrophiliacs, and other unorthodox groups).

 

Do you not see how you just implicitly referred them in a discriminatory manner by implying they are an "unorthodox" group? To say that you're okay with equal rights, but not use of the word marriage because they are "unorthodox" reaks of hypocrisy. This is yet again a slippery slope argument, anyway. "Next thing we'll want to let people marry goats and sheep! :eek:"

Edited March 9, 2009 by iNow

[Sayonara]

Like iNow I find it very disheartening to see that this discussion always degenerates into a disingenuous semantic debate which is painted as a battle over the right to enshrine one particular "definition" of a particular word.

 

Yeah, right. As if.

 

This topic has come up time and again and the same lame-ass arguments get trotted out each time, despite being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked in other threads. For the love of cheese, the ability to reproduce is irrelevant, as a sterling example. Bestiality also has nothing to do with the case at hand, and neither does bigamy.

 

This thread was started to discuss the legal merits and implications of Proposition 8. If it can't be kept on track, then it will be closed. Simple as.

 

 

 

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This notification is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[Mr Skeptic]

Like iNow I find it very disheartening to see that this discussion always degenerates into a disingenuous semantic debate which is painted as a battle over the right to enshrine one particular "definition" of a particular word.

 

Yeah, right. As if.

 

Well, as disheartening as it may be, that is how it is. Read the actual text of Proposition 8, and you will see that what you and iNow are finding disheartening is that you are trying to beg the question and I won't let you.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Semantics is a huge part of this. If marriage meant between a man and a woman at the time the laws concerning marriage were written, then this proposition does not take away any rights... they never had those rights to begin with.

 

If the GLBT community were asking for equal rights to those of married couples, rather than that marriage include same-sex couples, then it would not be about semantics. But they are fighting for a definition of a word, and that necessarily involves semantics, so it is rather disingenuous to complain about semantic arguments when the issue being discussed is semantics.

 

---

Anyhow, how about a less semantic argument? If the Defence of Marriage Act has passed with no constitutional problems, then it also stands to reason that there would be no constitutional problems with Proposition 8.

Says wiki:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

 

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

[iNow]

Anyhow, how about a less semantic argument? If the Defence of Marriage Act has passed with no constitutional problems

Actually, your own reference suggests otherwise.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality

The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA.

 

A right to marriage -- at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman -- overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed.

 

Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds:

• Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
  
  
• The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
  
  
• The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause.
  
  

Supporters of DOMA argue that the act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The only Federal Courts to hear direct challenges to DOMA have agreed with supporters on these points (See: In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004) and Wilson v Ake 18 FLW Fed D 175 (2005)).

 

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a new Federal Court challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause that does not address the DOMA provision that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.[11][12] The Obama administration did not comment on the lawsuit but reaffirmed its commitment to repeal the law.[13]

 

Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[14], California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

 

DOMA Section 2 is argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.

 

Constitutional objections to DOMA might be rendered moot by amendment of the Constitution or by stripping courts of jurisdiction to rule on the case. In response to the growing number of legal and political challenges, some proponents of DOMA have proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The strongest version of a Federal Marriage Amendment would override any possible application of the Full Faith and Credit clause to same-sex partnerships, marriages or civil unions in other states and would permanently prohibit both the federal and state governments from recognizing same-sex unions.[citation needed] It would also prevent any state from legalizing same-sex marriages entered into within the state. Another alternative, endorsed by the 2004 Republican Party political platform, is for Congress to pass a law protecting DOMA from judicial scrutiny. Some have argued that this itself would be unconstitutional.

[ParanoiA]

As usual, emotion is clouding reason.

 

Do you not see how you just implicitly referred them in a discriminatory manner by implying they are an "unorthodox" group? To say that you're okay with equal rights, but not use of the word marriage because they are "unorthodox" reaks of hypocrisy. This is yet again a slippery slope argument, anyway. "Next thing we'll want to let people marry goats and sheep! "

 

iNow, the freaking word "unorthodox" means breaking with convention or tradition. And isn't that a subsequent point of that dynamic? Allowing our traditions to define what's acceptable rather than our modern reason? Yes, the gay lifestyle is not "traditional", but it is not therefore wrong because of that. Or maybe there's a decent argument as to when it becomes "traditional". I would say we're defining new ones.

 

I'll back off this thread for a bit. I'm enormously frustrated and disheartened right now, and I don't want to let my passions on this topic ruin the otherwise cordial feel of the board.

 

Are you kidding? You called Skeptic a jackass and repeatedly appealed to his argument as ****ing stupid and now you're going to pause from your unchecked abusive verbal ad hom indulgence to pretense a self sacrifice? Fascinating. Skeptic has earned respect, you can do better than that.

 

Like iNow I find it very disheartening to see that this discussion always degenerates into a disingenuous semantic debate which is painted as a battle over the right to enshrine one particular "definition" of a particular word.

 

Which is the problem with these discussions since that's the issue - the definition of marriage. The definition of that word is the issue since that's how we interpret our laws. We must interpret the laws as they were written with respect to the usage of the terms at the time they were written. If marriage meant two yokes pissing on a rock when the law was written, then that's how we must interpret it today.

 

Now, after we interpret the meaning of the law, we must then decide if it's constitutional or not. If it's not, then we strike down the law.

 

Then your arguments on what is relevant and what is not, and most of the emotive ramblings in this thread, will become useful as new laws are written in response to the previous step...at least on our side of the pond, which is the subject of the thread.

 

That just seems simple to me. I don't understand what's so difficult.

 

The majority agrees gay folks should be able to hook-up like hetero folks, with all the bells and whistles, but we're all bottle necked over the implications of the fight on the definition of marriage. We agree on the ends, yet we fear the means. Seems to me we could get the result we want much quicker if we could get past the emotive component and approach our constitution in a logical, rational manner.

[iNow]

So, it's okay to let a black person have all of the rights as a citizen as long as we don't call them citizens... only if we call them "ex-property humans?"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So, it's okay to have a discussion about gay marriage as long as we don't do it civilly... only if we start calling each other stupid and swearing and testing the limits of Godwin's law?

 

(Hint: The answer is "no." Calm down, everyone.)

[Sayonara]

Mr Skeptic (and to a certain extent, but less so, ParanoiA): There is a difference between discussing a semantic issue and indulging in a disingenuous semantic debate. The two things are not the same just because they have the same word in them, as I am entirely sure you realise. This thread would not be on 24 hour suicide watch if I did not perceive it to be suffering the latter.

 

I will remind you again, as a free gift: the question posed in the OP is this:

 

How do you think the Supreme Courts will rule? Do you think they'll cave in for fear of being recalled and/or voted out by an angry religious mob (as was expressly threatened by supporters of prop 8 per the article I shared above), or do you think secular and more libertarian groups will come together to outnumber them? Either way, what do you think the courts will do and why?

 

The thread is about the legal merit of Proposition 8 and the basis on which the courts might make their decision. It is not an arena for setting up cross-population motives and then bashing them down.

 

If the GLBT community were asking for equal rights to those of married couples, rather than that marriage include same-sex couples, then it would not be about semantics. But they are fighting for a definition of a word, and that necessarily involves semantics, so it is rather disingenuous to complain about semantic arguments when the issue being discussed is semantics.

To me, this quote indicates exactly what is wrong with this thread. The discussion is not about "what the GLBT community is asking for". Proposition 8 is hardly their baby, is it?

 

This thread will be staying on 24Hr Suicide Watch until the time is up. I suggest getting back to the questions posed in the OP.

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic - I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me above. I was way out of line calling you a jackass like I did, as you've posted a number of wonderful replies to this forum, you are someone I respect, and my comments above are below me and nor do you deserve that type of treatment. I am sorry, my friend. I just really struggle to understand your position about this somehow being about the definition of a word, but that happens.

 

As Sayo has reminded everyone, I want this thread to be about Prop 8 and how the courts will rule. I am trying to figure out how we've gone so far away from our founding principels that our only recourse against such a ban staying on the books is whether or not they broke procedure or voilated some rule while doing so.

 

It's a tough question for the courts to address, and I wonder how they can get out of this without inciting an angry mob from either side. I wonder how they will do what's right for the long-term, and how they can do so without violating their power. I wonder what they will do these next ~90 days.

 

 

Anyway, sorry again for posting with such rage above. This is obviously a topic about which I care deeply, but that's no excuse to poo on my friends like I did.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow, the freaking word "unorthodox" means breaking with convention or tradition.

In isolation, I would quite agree, however, in context he was grouping same sex marriage with necrophilia. It was this implicit association to which I was reacting.

 

 

Then your arguments on what is relevant and what is not, and most of the emotive ramblings in this thread, will become useful as new laws are written in response to the previous step...at least on our side of the pond, which is the subject of the thread.

I suppose part of my argument is that the existing laws are fine, and do, in fact, allow two same sex people to wed and be recognized as such by the state. The part with which I'm struggling is why we'd allow those who wish to ban the practice of same sex marriage to be the ones writing new laws... New laws which are polar opposite to the founding principles of our nation...

 

Either way, that's a rabbits hole we've explore more than enough times already, and with the thread on 24 hour suicide watch, we really need to drop that line of discussion.

 

Prop 8 is a specific issue in the courts right now in California. I really have no idea how they are going to rule, and I wonder how either decision will be justified by them... whether they allow Prop 8 to remain or if they overturn it... on what basis could they possibly do either? As I mentioned above, it seems we are relying on a "procedural" based ruling and (please grant me some rhetorical license) whether or not the papers filed were all notarized and dated. It baffles me, but that's what's happening.

 

 

What possible explanations can the courts use for either a for or against decision?

 

Despite having forfeited my ability to make requests as a result of my uncensored frustration above, I'd truly like this thread to remain open so we can address that particular point.

 

What are the likely explanations the courts will use for either a for or against decision on Prop 8?

Edited March 10, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.