Prop 8 Overturned

#27
#27
btw... let me say upfront that I completely agree with gcbvol's post and have held that position for quite some time. There is NO reason why all Americans (perhaps excluding certain criminals) should not benefit from the same laws. I also agree with Vbham's comments regarding the symbolism of marriage. What struck me as somewhat interesting however, was the following statement pulled from the ruling...

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling stated.
Click to expand...

Most people, and studies that I'm aware of, view classes in terms of socioeconomic terms... e.g. lower, middle, upper, working, affluent, educated, non-educated, etc.

I'm not quite sure how to say this, and certainly my intent is not to offend anyone, but are gays considered a different "class" of people? To me that just seems somewhat offensive in itself if my interpretation is correct. I like chocolate, someone else likes vanilla... does that place us in different classes of people?

Assuming the discussion could be maintained without becoming offensive to anyone, I would really be interested in others perspectives.

If anyone does find my question offensive, please report it to the mods and ask for it to be deleted. :hi:
 
#28
#28
I think the very structure of most existing law classifies the lgbt community differently because they aren't privy to the same laws as straight people in most states.
 
#29
#29
I haven't read the opinion, but I assume he's referring to a "suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. There are varying levels of scrutiny depending upon what type of "class" is discriminated against. It's a "term of art."
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
milohimself said:
I think the very structure of most existing law classifies the lgbt community differently because they aren't privy to the same laws as straight people in most states.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your comment concerning "most" laws, as the right to marry (and the multiple benefits that come with it) seems to be the primary. Your perspective, though, I believe is on a similar track as mine. I'm wondering if we (society) aren't in a similar position with the lgbt community as we were with race relations in the past. African Americans did not have equal rights in numerous ways, and I think some tried to justify that by believing they were not equal. Now I'm wondering if some people feel the same way about gays. If so... just shows how far we still have to go to be considered a civilization.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
It wasn't clear in my statement but I separate out the symbolism of marriage from the government sanctioned benefits.

I fully believe the contract benefits that married couples are privy to should be equally available to gay couples and more than two person couples.

The word "marriage" itself appears to have some value due to the symbolism and I just don't see how you legislate symbolism in either direction. A constitutional amendment banning the use of the word in association with civil unions is dumb. Likewise, a judge mandating all civil unions must be called "marriage" is dumb too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I follow you and completely agree.
 
#35
#35
First, let me say that I don't think marriage should be a government issue at all. If we simply honored wills and contracts the way we should it would be irrelevant.

Second, I think the court erred in its ruling.

Here is why:
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Click to expand...

The acts and records discussed here includes marriage. All authority to define marriage has been left to the states. The federal court system has no constitutional authority to intervene.

Do I think that gay marriage is ok? Nope. That is why I don't want a law or court ruling that forces me to recognize it. In the same vein, those that support it don't want a law or ruling that forces them to live without it. Either way, someone loses. The only way we can all win is to deny govt the right to force a) me to accept it or b) you to reject it. The only reason to want a law either way is that you want to force others to accept your standards.
 
#37
#37
RespectTradition said:
First, let me say that I don't think marriage should be a government issue at all. If we simply honored wills and contracts the way we should it would be irrelevant.

Second, I think the court erred in its ruling.

Here is why:


The acts and records discussed here includes marriage. All authority to define marriage has been left to the states. The federal court system has no constitutional authority to intervene.

Do I think that gay marriage is ok? Nope. That is why I don't want a law or court ruling that forces me to recognize it. In the same vein, those that support it don't want a law or ruling that forces them to live without it. Either way, someone loses. The only way we can all win is to deny govt the right to force a) me to accept it or b) you to reject it. The only reason to want a law either way is that you want to force others to accept your standards.
Click to expand...

This assumes, if I understand correctly, that the primary issue is recognizing gay marriage. While that may be the primary issue for some, the bigger issue as I understand it is the related benefits that are not available to gay couples. I can't think of any critical reason why this couldn't be a win/win.
 
#38
#38
What? Who loses when it has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on your life? How does recognizing marriage affect you, exactly?
 
#39
#39
It's like the Catholic Universities that are upset about being forced to give insurance plans with BC included. If a gay couple is 'married' then that same university would have to give marriage benefits to them, even if they have religious objections. Insurance companies can be forced to give a gay spouse benefits that they offer to a straight spouse. Basically, most of the legitimate reasons that gay people want marriage rights. The point of it isn't to say "we're married!", it is to get the same treatment. That same treatment only comes, in some instances, by forcing someone who doesn't want to give the same treatment to do so regardless.

If you can't see how that impacts the freedom of others, then you aren't trying very hard to see it.

As long as the government wants to force private entities to be bound by standards that are only supposed to apply to the government, then this is an unavoidable consequence.

You may dislike bigotry. You may think discrimination is wrong. So do I. However, I have the right to be a bigot and a right to discriminate if I want to. So do you. Just because the government refuses to recognize that right does not change it.

The only way to solve this dilemma is to take the government out of marriage altogether.
 
#40
#40
What's the difference between that and any number of places of business in the south up to the 1960's refusing service to non-whites because it violated their own morals or ethics?
 
#41
#41
milohimself said:
What's the difference between that and any number of places of business in the south up to the 1960's refusing service to non-whites because it violated their own morals or ethics?
Click to expand...


What's wrong with letting private enterprises manage their own affairs, free of overbearing government intervention?
 
#42
#42
Pepe_Silvia said:
What's wrong with letting private enterprises manage their own affairs, free of overbearing government intervention?
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding ding


That's the thing so many people don't get.

There is absolutely no difference between forcing what you think is right, for example, no discrimination and someone else forcing what he thinks is right, for example, segregation.

Either way someone is forcing their own beliefs of right and wrong on others.

The right answer is to stop it! Just stop. Don't force other people to do what you think they should do.
 
#45
#45
Pepe_Silvia said:
What's wrong with letting private enterprises manage their own affairs, free of overbearing government intervention?
Click to expand...
Let's go back to what RespectTradition stated, citing that institutions would be forced to comply with laws that they don't agree with.

The Government Accountability Office currently lists 1,138 rights and responsibilities to heterosexual married couples, as defined by the defense of marriage act. The vast majority of those go towards things that are already within the realm of the federal government, social security, veterans benefits, medicaid, immigration law, etc. along with many things that are covered under the laws of various states.

Can you provide a few specific examples of federal marital benefits that have a direct impact on the operations of private businesses?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Conservatives would like to see it go to THIS particular SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

and some don't care.

marriage by todays standards is a joke.

big deal marry the gays.

all it takes is a piece of paper to get married and a piece of paper to get divorced. over 50% get divorced and some many times.

hell, my wife and i arent even legally married because its just a joke.

you love someone, you love someone. dont need the courts to label you married to prove it.
 
#49
#49
For all of you who are ok with gay marriage, are you also ok with relatives marrying if they are over the age of 18?

I am personally against gay marriage but this should be a state issue, the people of Cal have stated they do not want gay marriage in their state and for some liberal court to keep over turning their wishes is absurd.
 
#50
#50
volfanjustin said:
For all of you who are ok with gay marriage, are you also ok with relatives marrying if they are over the age of 18?

I am personally against gay marriage but this should be a state issue, the people of Cal have stated they do not want gay marriage in their state and for some liberal court to keep over turning their wishes is absurd.
Click to expand...


So its a state issue even if it violates the Constitution?

KKK will be pleased to hear that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top