Federal Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutionl

I don't get the big concern about all this.

Let gay people get married and be recognized by the government but call it something else to appease the religious institutes.

Marriage, in a Christian world, is sacred between a man and woman. To a government, marriage is different. Christians shouldn't care if gay people want to be together but argue that it should not be considered marriage since that can offend Christian people who considered marriage a religious ..thing.

Bonus points to anyone who can correctly guess where "marriage" was started and/or what it was really about

Agreed.

That's what we're trying to do in France with the "PACS" that includ only a few differencies with mariage.

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

Apparently it does not suit everyone, whether gay side than on the side of the opponents of gay marriage.
I must admit that i don't get why.
Today in France, the debate is more about adoption by gay couples.

It wasn't until the 1700's that people even began getting married in Churches. Before that, it was the local tavern or mother-in-laws back yard.

I think the people should take marriage back from the state and the churches. Then, this wouldn't be a problem at all me thinks.

Do it the way Native Americans used to. I'm a little biased.

It always was. The only thing a priest is, is an agent that is authorized to certify the validity of a marriage license, which must be obtained locally by your local government.

It's very black and white, the part people get hung up on is that the word "marriage" is used and that has roots in theology, but the act has become a accepted societal norm.

All the overturn did was clarify, and to California only, that any rights allotted to straight people cannot be taken away of semantics. Their 120 page ruling should elaborate a bit further, but this only affects California... Unless the Proponents of Prop 8 (to ban gay marriage) take it to the Federal Supreme Court; then the ruling would be universal if the SCOTUS chose to hear the case and rule on it.

NPR has some great, non-biased coverage on it.

Ya know I had a notion of this too... But then I look at things like the Penn State sexual molestation cases, the new cases in California here with the elementary teachers, the deep rooted racism and segregation in the south, the lack of rights between men and women and I think: What would it be like to live in a place were no one can think or grow? Where sexual molestation is the norm in a society where the biggest opponents of equal rights have the longest running records of acts they preach out against (Ted Haggard for instance). What would happen in a place where this stringent morality that is perpetrated is flawless and unquestionable?

V for Vendetta

1984

Catholic Church

Progress and critical thought is what's needed, not status quo, and there is no partisanship in that.

I'll play along.

It was a societal value, governed by their own society before we ever showed up. Just because "we" may not have recognized that they had a way of committing to a relationship doesn't mean it did not exist.

What I won't play along on is the fact that religion, Christianity specifically, has a sacrament known as marriage that happened to be picked up by government and used because it was easy to unify the language of the act, yet people were always able to have fulfilling, loving, committed relationships without putting a title on it. It wasn't until the legal ramifications came into play that people started getting opinionated on the idea.

How did slaves have families and wives before they were considered actual people?

Why is it that up until recently there was a sect of Christianity that promoted polygamy which, although humanly natural, is socially taboo and considered a stigma?

I can ask absurd, logically simple questions trying to get some long winded answer too! However, a lot of these things seem quite simple to me, maybe it's because if you look at it, it's not that complicated and fear, angst and prejudice are the true roots for wanting to take other's rights away.

Critical thinking is good and bad. Depending on your situation at the given time of critical thought, the outcomes vary.

I was recently reading an article that stated in countries where security isn't an issue, women are attracted to more feminine men. In countires where security is unstable, women are attracted to 'strong' men. This was an article describing society and how it changes based on the situation.

Look at countries throughout history and you can see and they became stronger, what got them there changed and they eventually had a downfall.

Rome.. since that one is popular. Everything that got them to top dog was eventually outsourced, the people too good to do basic tasks.. they changed and lost what they had. Their foundation disappeared.

Would I like everyone to have food, water and a shelter? Yes. Can it be done? Yes, but at what cost? And can that cost be maintained?

For example: Taxes. We look at last year's amount and say "if we raise taxes 5% we generate X amount more."
Well, yeah, given that last year taxes were 5% lower. Next year when taxes are higher and likely less generated (basic economics) they say we lost money.. well, that money was never generated.
The critical thinking really isn't critical enough. It must be like Chess, always thinking multiple moves ahead of the current one.

As I see it as a liberal mindset that they are very focused on the first move creating their utoptia 20 moves later. Well, there are 19 steps that change after that first move, 18 steps that change after the second.

Critical thinking is both a blessing and a curse depending on who is in control at the time.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/20 [...] itutional/

Youve already gotten your answer, it was an unconstitutional law. And we don't live in a confederacy. Which makes sense if you think about it, slavery would still be going on in some places and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Same thing happened in Florida in 2000 more people voted for Gore but he still lost.

They are there to protect the minority from the majority, and uphold the constitution.

You are now getting off topic from the OP......Egypt has nothing to do with Americas rejection of unconstitutional laws.

SA Constitution

Lets not take sound bites from right-wing blogs and actually look at what was said, and why. Their constitution is pretty well rounded as is, covers every essential right a person should have. What kind of sense does it make to have a country who isn't very pro-American model their constitution off of Americas?

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a basic human right. Seems pretty clear cut, the USA wasn't recognizing Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Especially when marriage gives benefits to couples then of course its your constitutional right.

Let them get married, the government recognize it, and remove all privileges of being married across the board while having no religious attachment what-so-ever.

Problem solved.

Mingo, why the hell do you keep making this issue about me? I'm asking questions and discussing the topic. It's not frickin' about me!

To answer your question, me personally don't care. However, as to who they are hurting or offending, the answer is about 75% of the population.

A farmer develops his land, creates prosperity, and generates happiness for himself and his family. So yes, it is absolutley relevent.

I believe anyone true to themself has to agree its been change lately, otherwise, many of these bridges would have been crossed long ago.
So, starting with that understanding, how flexable should our constitution be?
The reasons for the vast majority of our founders to even be here was religious abilities, and the freedoms to do as one wished.
Many of those things are threatened today, due mainly to this perceived "flexable" constitution.
Again, adding minorities as its main protector is a false point, because it only takes 1 tyrant to rule, spoil and destroy

i don't think so.
I think it's only the trias politica principle.
But i'm not living in US, so...

This is to demonstrate the authority of their position.
A long black and large robe does not expose the bodies of those who wear it. It denotes a certain decency induced by their function. (true in my country... i'm not sure it's the same in usa)

Putting variables on critical thinking just devalues the outcome.

True critical thinking requires the consideration of both sides of a decision, regardless of your emotional response.

This is an ideological question really, and comes down to the opinion of whether or not you THINK a person does or doesn't deserve those things. It generally revolves around a personal superiority idolizing intelligence and/or wealth. The simple answer to this question is; yes we can. The obvious answer to this is; no we won't.

Like most of your statement here, it's not truly critical. Your entire statement hinges on a separation of ideology where conservatives think about the future and liberals do not. NEWS FLASH: With our current political climate, neither side think past their elected period of time. This has extended to business as well and why you see CEOs getting millions of dollars and are only there a very short period of time. Very few people think about progress down the road, because they cannot take credit for it, plain and simple. Everything you said is directly related to the part I bolded in your last sentence: "Who is in control right now?"

This is a very American characteristic and is spreading to other countries and labeled "competition via capitalism" and is really just a function of personal greed.

That is not critical, that is selfish.

No, that is the way you are pulling it through your cognitive screen.

The right was allotted by the people to extend evenly a right that was only allotted to a specific portion of the population at first. Then, the decision was made that you cannot take this right away after giving it out by discriminating on the basis of sexuality. Without all the obfuscation, it's fairly straight forward.

I agree riser, but an even simpler approach would be to remove the term "marriage" from all legal records and recognize "civil union" as the defacto term. Then there would be no way to discriminate and marriage would still be left to the church without government intervention.

From my knowledge the black robe thing was precedent from England and was supposed to represent unbias, I could be very wrong about that though.

As for the rest of your argument, you seem a smart guy, why are you questioning government structure? You know the answer to the question you ask, and the so-called balance that we are supposed to have in our Federal Government.

California's judiciary was based off the the Federal structure with a direct right of referendum allotted to the people. The referendum is the part that has screwed California schools amongst many other topics where the uneducated majority votes with their emotions with no respect to the laws that are already in place. This has created mass turmoil before and still stands to be one of the major downfalls of living in California - It leaves people so open to external influence that may base their entire campaigns off of lies, like how Prop 8 was funded with a huge amount of money from Utah special interests (read; Mormons).

Also, the first line of your response here "Constitution is designed to protect the individual" is only 1/2 right. It's supposed to protect the person from the Government, but the Government is supposed to act for the greater good and protect the minorities from the brunt of the majority when it's discriminatory. This is why we have the religious freedoms we do, using a whole separate topic as an extremely obvious example.

I guess I am expressing the same concern and yes fear as our founders concerning the federal judiciary. I find these quotes from Jefferson a bit chilling considering the power the black robes have amassed over the years to legislate from the bench.

The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Mar 9, 1821


The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Our founders were wary of the judiciary because of their experience with the English courts. Bad experience.

I agree with you on the whole referendum idea. I think it completely thwarts the concept of a representative republic. The referendum idea is real Democracy where the people vote to make law. I like to call it Mobocracy. It doesn't work IMO.

As a gay man in a committed relationship for 3 years I look at it this way:

Christians say "marriage" is a religious institution.. I agree with them!

Sounds good right?

Buy hey waituhminute!!!.. don't we have this thing called separation of church and state? As far as the government is concerned with proper separations, "marriage" is a legal contract between 2 or more consenting adults. This is the only type of legal contract that is allowed to discriminate who may enter into it.

The religious types can't have it both ways.

As far as the court ruling overriding the will of the voters. Our founding fathers implemented the judiciary with the belief in mind that there are times when a majority can unreasonably oppress a minority, such is the case here.

I really don't care if a church of any kind will recognize or approve of my union in any way. I'm not interested in their respect or recognition.

Heres what I want:

-I want my partner to be able to visit me in the hospital if I'm in the ICU- and vice versa (There are several cases in which people have died alone in Intensive care while their partner was denied seeing them because he/she "wasn't immediate family" )

-I want the tax deductions I'm entitled to in filing a joint tax return- I recently read a news story about this and I admit it had never occurred to me. We're paying THOUSANDS more in taxes because we have to file as Single.

-I want my partner on my company medical insurance. I work for it, I pay my contributions, I'm entitled to it.


Thats all I want personally. Why do the religious types have such a problem with it?

Well, our intrusive government, whether supposedly giving married families a break on their taxes or not, has made this happen.
I believe you simply take the word out marraige, due to its religious nature, all would be a go.
The things mentioned here dont even have much to do with sexual relations, as a best friend in life can and should be able to do many of those things.
Theres a law on the books in many states that goes, if 2 people are living together for a certain amount of time, theyre considered a union in lawful terms.
A religious person isnt for marraige of gays, but Im thinking the vast majority wont deny a union, and the benefits from it

The OP was really about the ever increasing power of the Judiciary to make law from the bench. I was only using prop 8 to illustrate the argument. I actually agree prop 8 should be struck down, and I also think the whole referendum process should be struck down as unconstitutional. The people elect representatives to make the laws, not vote them into existence by a majority.

To your last 3 bullet points. In my state, a domestic partner is allowed hospital visits, even in ICU. It's not a problem. I didn't know this until recently. My colleague at work is a gay woman and told me this.

My company also offers health benefits to domestic partners as well.

The only other point is to just get the government to recognize domestic partners as married for tax reasons which goes back to my original argument that marriage needs to be taken away from the state and religious institutions and make it between individuals and the community. The only way the state should be involved is to record the union for legal/tax reasons.

Problem solved.