Court overturns gay marriage ban
CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer responds to the ca. ruling http://www.salon.c om/opinion/greenwa ld/2008/05/15/cali fornia/index.html "Only after exhaustively analyzing California judicial precedent on these constitutional questions -- over the course of 121 pages -- did the Court conclude that the state statute "limiting the designation of a marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples." The ruling, in effect, compels state and local officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally. The crux of the Court's ruling is grounded in what it called "the right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family." That right "constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons." ... As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that "marriage " should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage "? To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I've written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court's decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure "judicial activism" (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one's preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of "judicial activism" without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of "judicial activism." " have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #191)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
charlie forgets that they do not when the tradition is seen to be unconstitutional or prejudicialcharlie also forgets here that religion has never been a reasonable argument to be for or against something. case in point would be reynolds vs. united states http://supreme.jus tia.com/us/98/145/ case.html where scotus rejected the argument that polygamy was part of the morman religion and tradition. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" religion is simply not reason enough to interfere with civil law and vice versahere charlie makes the mistake of believing that without religion or tradition one would automatically live in a vacuum of sorts which is absolutely false. that would suppose that an atheist or one without religion lacks the ability to have moral character or ethics. as for charlie's argument other argument again scotus has underlined that regardless of one's religious views they can not be allowed to influence the law an thus can not be allowed to interfere with the liberty and equality granted to citizens of this country without just cause. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #386)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
again charlie is wrong as he again continually ignores the fact that states do have the right to restrict marriage as long as there is a legitimate and rational reason to do so. in the case of marriage between two people of the same gender there simply isn't one. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #384)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
here charlie is clearly being deceitful as he is not asking for equal application of the law because if he were then he would realize that equal application of the law not only disregards sexual orientation but doesn't try to use it in hopes of restricting the rights of citizens. a clear example of this is his continued use and pathological focus on the word same sex marriage and his continued argument that essentially only those who submit to a heterosexual union should be allowed to marry which is clearly prejudicial based on sexual orientation and in complete contradiction to his above statementcharlie disregards the fact that the marriage LAWS are not being redefined as he continually argues. as chief justice george noted in the majority opinion: "The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’ argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right — the right to “same-sex marriage” — or to change, modify, or (as some have suggested) “deinstitutionaliz e” the existing institution of marriage. Instead, plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriagea persons individual belief do not change once equality is given if this were true then groups like the ku klux klan would have disappeared long ago and misogyny would be a thing of the past. equality has never forced anyone to accept anything it simply made it illegal to deny the basic rights of those who seek equality in the public sphere. people are still free to hate, to be biased against, to not accept, to think something is distasteful, and to continue dislike others. the difference here is that it only becomes harder for those who hold these views to curb the rights of those they don't like without just causehere charlie makes the mistake of thinking and even arguing that equality and liberty are only things that should be granted to those who our "culture " deems worthy even if there isn't just cause to restrict their liberties and basic rights. this is patently false if this were true then women would have never gotten the vote, blacks would have never gotten the vote, and interracial marriage would be fantasy rather than realitycharlie neglects the definition of the word itself. from websters: 5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations charlie also neglects the fact that homosexuality is a part of many western cultures including our own. england, france, the netherlands, canada, belgium, south africa, sweden, norway, denmark, finland, germany, switzerland, iceland and spain to name a few all allow same sex marriage or civil unions and have thus intergrated homosexuality into their culture. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #383)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
charlie again would be smart if he only took his own advice... which he continues to demonstrate that he doesn'tcharlie forgets that it was the wording of those original decisions that underlined the fact that marriage is a fundamental right though he would like all of us to believe differently. here charlie confuses the issue tremendously. as it is actually arguments AGAINST gay marriage which are based on bad faith arguments and semantics. both the ca. court and scotus have ruled that semantic changes to the word marriage in hopes to restrict the right without just cause are simply not justifiable nor are they rational or legitimate. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #381)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
and yet charlie continues to ignore the fact that in both the ca. case of perez and the scotus case of loving the idea of interracial marriage did not exist and yet the courts found that bans on such types of marriage were unconstitutional. again the idea of seperating marriage by mere semantics has been rejected not only by the ca. supreme court but also by scotus in turner vs. safley when the state tried to argue that a different set of rules should apply to "prison marriages". charlie likeS to argue over semanticshere charlie makes an incredible leap of logic and begs us to do the same with him. in doing so he asks all of us to commit the logical fallacy of questionable cause. simply sayng that because homosexuality has become more acceptable is the reason for the decision in the court case ignores the constitutional question of liberty and who is deserving of such liberty. according to our constitution all citizens of this country deserve it. as our society has evolved from allowing irrational personal bias muddle logic and reason thus we have come to understand that denying the basic rights of a particular group of citizens without just cause is simply not compatible with our constitution and the freedoms it guaranteeshere charlie demonstrates the logical fallacies of an appeal to fear, appeal to consequences of belief, and a red herring. besides this charlie would have you believe that if not for religion then noone would ever think something like pedophilia was wrong... which is completely false. first and foremost charlie undoubtly knows that pedophilia, polygamy, and incest are all against the law. pedophilia especially involves a victim who can not possibly give their consent and suffers some harm for the rest of their lives because of the molestation to equate pedophilia with same sex marriage denies the reality of the fact that same sex marriage involves two CONSENTING ADULTS. also homosexuality is not against the law. furthermore charlie completely ignores the fact that the state has the right to restrict the right of marriage as long as the state can prove a RATIONAL AND LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO. in the case of pedophilia it is absolutely obvious why this will NEVER be considered legalcharlie forgets that interracial marriage was also considered the same at one point and that neither interracial marriage nor same sex marriage are comparable acts to pedophilia, polygamy, or incest. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #380)
Court overturns gay marriage ban
i appreciate the kind words... there's just one correction i would give... i'm a girl. :D everything else i thank you for. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #189)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
again charlie employs the use of a red herring. in order to not discuss legality and constitutionality he would rather discuss relatives which are based on individuals opinions. unfortunately our laws are not governed by religion no matter how much charlie would like everyone to believe this. and as scotus stated in planned parenthood vs. casey (which i have previously posted and which charlie time and time again likes to willfully be ignorant to) : "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral codethat would still be charlieits truly sad that charlie once again proves that he is a hypocrite considering he can't seem to take his own advice. please refer to previous replies he's posted in this thread where he has used profanity, where he has flown into tirades filled with personal attacks, and where he actually admits he was trying to personally insult others... which he apparently didn't realize falls under the logical fallacy of personal attack a.k.a. ad hominem abusive considering he actually tried to say that it wasn't a logical fallacy. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #371)
Calif. Top Court To Rule On Gay Marriage
rule #1: get a sense of humor rule #2: refer to rule #1 when someone obviously employs the use of sarcasm. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #543)
Court overturns gay marriage ban
your observation was irrelevant in the first place which is why i replied back with something equally irrelevant. why don't you try arguing over legality and constitutionality instead of going off on your own little irrelevant tirades. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #186)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
exactly! herbert/charlie/ch uckles/roberto has been wildly reaching for any straw he can find. he's substituted a NEWS ARTICLE for legal opinion and is now using a radio talk show host's religious opinions as legal support for his bias. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #366)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
please note the absolute lack of logic or sense that charlies above statement makes. his statement relies solely on the belief that homosexuals are unequal to heterosexuals... in other words in order to buy into charlies logic one has to be biased against homosexuals in the first place which is purely an emotional response and not one based on logic or legalityhere is are the absolutely interesting things about charlie's use of anything written by dennis prager writes about the issue. dennis prager is a conservative talk show host... thats it. besides this prager's article has nothing to do with discussing the legality or constitutionality of the decision and instead focuses on prager's own religious and moral judgements. thats it. charlie's use of dennis prager as support for his personal emotional biased opinion has no base on constitutional law and is evidence of charlie's hypocrisy on the matter of personal bias and emotional appeals which he falsely accuses justice george ofagain charlie is asking you to make a leap of faith with him... faith that must and has to agree with his own that is. note charlie's lack of actual legal evidence to support his faulty theory. the other thing is that charlie is now also asking you to believe that it is not only legally right but morally right to discriminate against people that you don't like based only on one's personal bias. he is literally arguing that it doesn't matter if the constitution prevents these actions, it doesn't matter if its not legal... what matters is the personal bias that he holds and thats it. charlie has now completely devolved into emotional and prejudicial appeals from people who aren't even pretending to discuss the legal aspects of the case. in doing so charlie has stripped away his facade of championing the law or the constitution (though his mask was fairly thin anyway) and now stands in full view for what he really is... a homophobe who bases his bigotry on his own brand of religion and morality. from the scotus opinion for planned parenthood vs. casey: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." charlie would do well to heed those words. but i think we all know he won't. have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #365)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
see what i mean everyone? hahaha have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #360)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
no the most interesting part is that charlie is now substituting an article from a newspaper for the opinion of the court. if one reads the full opinion of the court (which would be the basis of opening the door to anything) it clearly outlines that the state failed to give a rational or legitimate reason to restrict the right of marriage from same sex couples. there was no mention of age restrictions, marrying ones sibiling, or even polygamy. charlie's erreneous theory lies soley on the wording of a news article and not a legal opinionthe real interesting thing is charlie is basing everything he is stating on a news article and not the actual legal opinion. though it is true that the majority stated that homosexuals are a "suspect class" and it could possibly have some type of effect on any attempts to add an unconstitutional amendment to the california's state constitution... but just as trying to add a constitutional amendment against women or blacks is bad so would a constitutional amendment against homosexuals is bad. so what we should be asking ourselves at this point is what is charlie's point anyway? this is easy... charlie wants the discrimination of homosexuals legalized simply because he has a personal bias against themif the will of the people is purely to restrict the rights of other citizens without just cause then the will of the people is unconstitutional. it is unlikely that this will go to the u.s. supreme court considering scotus has continually refused to review ANY case that has to do with same sex marriage for whatever reason... charlie is simply living in a fantasy world of his own making where news articles can be substituted for legal opinion and where he controls the decisions of scotus because he's apparently telepathic and knows exactly what everyone is thinking at any given moment. sorry about the last part folks it was just too easy not to... have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #358)
California's top court to rule on gay marriage
so what does that have to do with the constitution and the legality of same sex marriage? have a nice day. (May 21, 2008 | post #354)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
