Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 Full story: The Daily Democrat 220

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Full Story

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#110 Feb 24, 2013
"While the plaintiffs had asked Tauro to find that sexual orientation was a suspect class and therefore properly treated with strict scrutiny, Tauro found that Section 3 was unconstitutional on rational basis grounds. He did not address the question of whether heightened scrutiny was warranted. Tauro issued a decision in Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services, which found the same provision of DOMA on the same day he released his opinion in Gill. Tauro entered his final judgment–a document developed in consultation with the parties to the case–on August 18 and granted a stay for the duration of the appeals process." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...

(two more rulings finding DOMA unconstitutional under the 5th amendment equal protections clause, and even under the "ratinal basis" excuse.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#111 Feb 24, 2013
APA's Position: "APA’s brief, in support of the plaintiffs/appellees, was joined by the Massachusetts Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The brief applies social science research to rebut some of the justifications offered for the prohibition in section 3 of DOMA of any federal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples. Those justifications, involving procreation, the welfare of children and the like, are closely similar to those offered in cases defending states’ refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. The amicus brief provides extensive psychological research on key points, including how homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen, and is highly resistant to change. Also provided is current scientific research on the nature of same-sex relationships, the role of child-rearing, and the stigma resulting from denying the label “marriage” to same-sex unions. For example, the brief cited psychological research showing that gay and lesbian parents are not any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, and that their children are not less adjusted. The brief also addresses how denying federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples stigmatizes them." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#112 Feb 24, 2013
“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”(Gill)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#113 Feb 24, 2013
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#114 Feb 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You ARE a true anti-gay because you don't support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
You can claim to be whatever you want, but I will continue to point out to everyone that you ARE INDEED ANTI-GAY.
You can claim whatever you want, but I will continue to point put to everyone that you are, indeed, a liar. And because you are such a liar, I just don't feel inclined to feel pity for you.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#115 Feb 24, 2013
Jake wrote:
Then I'll ask you, do you feel like a little bitc:h when you take a d!ck up your a:ss??
Wow, you really aren't that bright if that's the best you can do.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#116 Feb 24, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
I DO believe those who have a vested interest have opinions which carry more weight than someone with mere personal feelings. Your blatant attempt to alter what I said tells the tale here. It was not inferred that someone isn't entitled to their opinion.
Not a single witness against Prop 8 has proven there is any impact on them from marriage equality. Additionally since when, under our laws, does one religion or anyone's religion trump the rights of those without or with a different religious view in civil law? Just because you believe my civil equal marriage has impact upon you or your life does not make it so.
Just how does my civil equal marriage rights in any way impact you? By what rationale would any court in the land dare impose someone's religious views on a nonbeliever? Not in this republic, now or ever!
I alter nothing, and therefore your credibility is compromised. And just because you claim your demands and tantrums have no impact on others does not make it the truth. Some might sincerely believe that calling same sex relationships "marriage" would further erode the moral fabric of American society. A differing opinion is negated by you because it is "mere personal feelings." One might suggest that your own differing position is based on "mere personal feelings" and therefore just as irrelevant. Sure you can claim some assumed justification, and you can claim imaginary "rights" which have not yet been established. Some morons would claim that you're all sorts of bad things simply because you're gay. Does that make it so? Of course not.

You demand that your relationship be deemed whatever YOU demand that it be called. Sorry, I disagree. I also don't generally cater to or encourage demands and tantrums, but I digress. The possibility exists that your tantrums and demands will prevail. Unlike some, I don't presume to be able to predict the future based on whim. I am fairly certain, however, that you will not attain acceptance simply because of your demands and tantrums. If you want same sex relationships legally codified and sanctioned, I support that vis-a-vis civil unions. And if that isn't good enough for you or frauds like the sad and bitter liars like Sheeple et al, I'm okay with that.

Ancillary idea. I do not support female circumcision or other marginalization in places like India, Pakistan, and other shithole societies. True, it doesn't affect me personally, but one might conclude that it's merely my personal position an opinion, so it should just not be considered.

(Watch some mental midget call that a straw man argument.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#117 Feb 24, 2013
Civil Unions, while a step in the right direction because they give some protections to real families including children, are still a problem because they single out gay people for less than equal treatment.

The courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal, and denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing. It results in demonstrable and verifiable harm to those judged as less than equal. The Ca. supreme court explained it fairly clearly: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117)

"the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same -sex couples.(p.118 In re Marriage Cases)
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#118 Feb 24, 2013
I disagree and do not believe in either "never" or "always." The only absolutes I believe in are found in basic math and physics.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#119 Feb 24, 2013
fr Willis:

>Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people...<

100% WRONG. We are not asking for "special" or "elevated" (whatever those are!) rights. Only EQUAL rights, and we do NOT already have them, so don't even bother opening that door, bub.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#120 Feb 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Civil Unions, while a step in the right direction because they give some protections to real families including children, are still a problem because they single out gay people for less than equal treatment.
Why do civil unions necessarily have to require less than equal treatment?

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#121 Feb 24, 2013
fr "jerry", who is really DAVID MOORE OF PEKIN IL:

>...Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual 'marriage' is every country that allows it.<

Wrong again, davy boy. Have mommy change your diapers before your naptime.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#122 Feb 24, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
Why do civil unions necessarily have to require less than equal treatment?
Because as the US Supreme Court has already held, separate is inherently unequal.

Why would one create a separate classification to secure the same rights? Do you really want to give the government chances to create MORE legislation? That wouldn't be terribly bright.

The reality remains that the constitution mandates that states may not deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#123 Feb 24, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Why do civil unions necessarily have to require less than equal treatment?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that civil unions ARE inferior and unequal to legal civil marriages and would not satisfy their earlier ruling in Goodridge (2003). They offered this in an advisory ruling when the legislature was debating how to meet the demands from Goodridge.

If you believe Civil Unions are equal, why don't you get one or encourage your family and friends to use that option?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#124 Feb 24, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Why do civil unions necessarily have to require less than equal treatment?
Even if you require the laws treat everyone the same, calling them something different labels one as inferior. Both science and the courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal.

Additionally, denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing. It results in demonstrable and verifiable harm to those judged as less than equal.

I think the Ca. court quote explained it fairly well. You did not attempt to refute thier findings.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#125 Feb 24, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
If you believe Civil Unions are equal, why don't you get one or encourage your family and friends to use that option?
Because counter to their avatar. BS Detector is actually a BS generator.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#126 Feb 24, 2013
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. Laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." p. 135 Perry v. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/f...
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#127 Feb 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you require the laws treat everyone the same, calling them something different labels one as inferior. Both science and the courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal.
Additionally, denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing. It results in demonstrable and verifiable harm to those judged as less than equal.
I think the Ca. court quote explained it fairly well. You did not attempt to refute thier findings.
I didn't waste too much time on them.

And "science" (whoever that is) and the courts didn't "realize" anything. They decided. I believe they decided in error.

If you want to feel dehumanized and stigmatized, that's up to you. I don't... which may explain why I am neither bothered nor upset by most of the morons in here. I decided long ago that nobody can make me feel bad (or in this case, dehumanized) unless I let them.

But I do thank you for reasoned responses. I am in no way required to agree with them (and obviously I don't), but I do appreciate them.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#128 Feb 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because as the US Supreme Court has already held, separate is inherently unequal.
Why would one create a separate classification to secure the same rights?
Like women? Like blacks?
lides wrote:
<quoted text> Do you really want to give the government chances to create MORE legislation? That wouldn't be terribly bright.
It's not too bright to elect the morons we already have. I cite California in particular. But I agree that we don't need more laws... like invalidating centuries of how marriage is and has been defined by millions.
lides wrote:
<quoted text> The reality remains that the constitution mandates that states may not deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law.
Not the reality. The notion. The reality in practice is quite different. And of course that notion is conveniently forgotten when demanding that certain taxpayers are arbitrarily taxed at a higher rate. All you have to do is make the bogus claim using thoroughly dishonest and arbitrary terms like "fair share." And how equal is it that some others pay no federal income tax at all. So much for claims of equal treatment under the law. More like mob rule under the law. Is it any wonder that people and businesses leave California? And is it any wonder that corporations create offshore shell corporations outside the USA? And is it any wonder that those same corporations outsource jobs to the Third World?

So if and/or when your tantrums and demands are won, is it any wonder that so many people still won't like gays and the dishonesty of the politically lunatic fringe, feather boas and sequins?

Good post.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#129 Feb 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because counter to their avatar. BS Detector is actually a BS generator.
Aw, gee. You actually had a reasonable post. Then, of course, there's like one.

Yet again, is it any wonder why so many don't take you or your bullsh!t seriously? Stay with things rational and you get a rational response. Or you can write this snarky drivel which deserves only ridicule.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Court tosses Washington man's porn conviction Sun californio 2
Hearing over gay marriage laws underway Sep 10 Professor Jumper 46
Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii gay marriage cases in court Sep 8 Yakitori 15
Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada gay marriage laws in court Sep 8 WeTheSheeple 1
Reno Couple Awaits 9th Circuit Appeal In Gay Ma... Sep 2 WeTheSheeple 2
Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares fo... (Mar '13) Sep 1 Terra Firma 1,568
Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand Aug 25 Lawrence Wolf 64
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••