California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 17

lsfoster · 11-17-2008, 10:09 PM

Okay, so I don't know why I've been putting this off for so long, but here it is: the penultimate "you have no actual argument for why gay marriage should not be allowed" thread.

(I know you're all excited).

So here's the deal, we might forget sometimes, but our country is pretty much built on this little document called "The Constitution". There's this little part in there called "The 14th Amendment", and it starts like this,

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Now when it comes to the constitution, we tend to go by legislative interpretation, as well as legal precedent. The reason that none of this should even be an issue is that basically all of this was covered just about 40 years ago in the Loving v. Virginia case. This was the case that struck down all the interracial marriage bans. If you don't want to go through this link and read the whole thing, here are the important parts.

According to the record of this case, it was stated that,"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). " Placing marriage firmly within the confines of the 14th amendment.

The court also stated, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)." Which pretty clearly states that although marriage is a State matter, they are still bound by their duties to the US Constitution, and specifically to the 14th amendment.

Loving v. Virginia

So here's what it boils down to: You can disagree with gay marriage, you can disagree with homosexuality in general, you can think that marriage has a specific meaning. None of it matters. The US Supreme Court has, essentially, already ruled on gay marriage, it just doesn't seem to want to admit it. Which is sad, because it's actually very simple.

- States are bound by the 14th amendment.
- The 14th amendment says that no state can deny a citizen their rights and privileges, or deprive them of life, liberty, or property.
- The US Supreme Court has already said that marriage is included in the rights covered by the 14th amendment.

Legally, there is no real argument for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

If there's something I'm missing, I'd really love to know about it.

(Note: this is also why DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.)

**Liebling:-)))** · 11-18-2008, 05:18 AM

:rofl2: to posts from #434 to #448. I laugh sooo hard with pain....

**Liebling:-)))** · 11-18-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

I am not goin' to provide you a link since you don't read my post very clear. Go back and re-read my post # 419.

Yes I have read your post #419.

Same sex marriage and bestiality are not the same thing. Why? Because the same sex couple are normal people like straight couple who love each other and want to marry but bestiality? How?

It make no sense to use "bestiality" as an example why you disagree with same sex marriage. I consider "bestiality" as an animal abuse/cruelty or rape because the animals did not ask human for sex which mean is ILLEGAL. It's ILLEGAL force to have sex with human being or animals... I never, never, never know in my life that bestiality is a legal and okay for human being to force animal to have sex. If it's really true which mean that sexuality abuse/rape/animal abuse is legal.

Accord your post, about older men have sex with children or marry children... It's their culture from third country (poor countries), not in America and Europe. Nobody fight for want to have older men or women to sex with children or marry children as a legal... I would get heart attack if anyone fight for legal to have older men or women to sex with children or marry children.

Please use common sense.

**Liebling:-)))** · 11-18-2008, 05:52 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Do you think that EVERY country all over the world is against it ?

Maybe mentality illness people around the world ?

Quote:

It's okay to post links here, so that it can be use for education for every member here. I would like to read and learn. And, also I researched somethin' about it yesterday and I was

to read about WHICH country that is legal to allow people doin' that. I don't know if, I should provide a link here, because some ADers don't accept where a link comes from and some ADers use that link for their general informations. I am still concerned about how the world have changed alot so far and how it would affect to some people not to care about it because, they don't see the truth anymore. It's like they just don't care and give what people want. Shall I say their feelings are " wax " or " condition " ?

I would suggest you to create a new thread about bestiality then we can share our discussion there, not here because its about same sex marriage issues, not bestiality.

**Liebling:-)))** · 11-18-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lsfoster

Here, let me give you some more examples of why this argument makes no sense.

Straight people can get married? Next thing you know a man will be allowed to marry his sister!

Straight people can get married? Next thing you know a man will be allowed to marry a little girl!

Straight people can get married? Next thing you know people will be allowed to have as many spouses as they want!

All of these are actually better arguments than yours, since they uniquely relate to relationships between "male" and "female" partners, whereas gay marriage and bestiality have almost no connection.

If you are not worried about these scenarios, and therefore the horrific effect that straight marriage will clearly have on our society if it is allowed to continue, please stop making ridiculous claims about gay marriage.

really good one!!!!!!

lsfoster · 11-18-2008, 03:58 PM

I'm noticing a distinct lack of arguments suddenly.

Interesting....

Byrdie714 · 11-18-2008, 03:59 PM

Because they know they are on the losing end of it.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Because they know they are on the losing end of it.

Yep. I see the lack of response as concesssion to defeat.

lsfoster · 11-18-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Because they know they are on the losing end of it.

Edit: And for jillio too.

**KarissaMann05** · 11-18-2008, 04:53 PM

I don't really read many pages.. but I can see some pointless posts and I am just disappointed that someone claimed a such nonsense thing to say... =/

*glomping the homosexual marriage*

Hwy99 · 11-18-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Because they know they are on the losing end of it.

Exactly, there are absolutely nothing to argue against the gay marriage about

wildbank · 11-19-2008, 01:56 AM

It is easy to predict that there one day will be no bans on any kind of marriage, SOON. It is about being human having rights to choose lifestyle, whom to marry or share relationships. When enough states are tolerant, California law would blush in the end. Give it time but we are not giving up applying our demand for equal rights to our legislators.

Byrdie714 · 11-19-2008, 06:11 PM

The Supremes are getting involved.....

Quote:

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF,

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News

jillio · 11-19-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

The Supremes are getting involved.....

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News

I have every confidence that it will be overturned. I've said all along it was a civil rights issue to be decided in the courts.

Byrdie714 · 11-19-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I have every confidence that it will be overturned. I've said all along it was a civil rights issue to be decided in the courts.

I'm glad that you have the confidence. I have it as well but being cautious about it.

I'm sure it will be overthrown on a technicality.

jillio · 11-19-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

I'm glad that you have the confidence. I have it as well but being cautious about it.

I'm sure it will be overthrown on a technicality.

I'm cautious, as well, just cautiously optimisitic. Civil rights issues cannot be decided with a popular vote. We can only vote for the state supreme court justices that will uphold those rights, or for the President that will appoint the Federal Supreme court justices that will uphold those rights. I think that is the technicality that will see this over turned.

Byrdie714 · 11-19-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I'm cautious, as well, just cautiously optimisitic. Civil rights issues cannot be decided with a popular vote. We can only vote for the state supreme court justices that will uphold those rights, or for the President that will appoint the Federal Supreme court justices that will uphold those rights. I think that is the technicality that will see this over turned.

Then I'll re-phrase. I am optimistic that it will be overturned on a technicality although I am being cautious as we all been down this path before only to end in disappointment.

**Maria** · 11-20-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lsfoster

Okay, one more time

it's L-sfoster, and I'm a girl.

I apologized since I thought you were a boy because, of your avatar.

But, thanks for correctin' me anyway.

lsfoster · 11-20-2008, 08:02 AM

Yeah, I just look like 12-year old boy. The avatar is amazingly accurate.

No problem.

**Maria** · 11-20-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

"Of course not. Aside from that being a bit of a cop out (do you really think all gay people are going to start screwing their dog or random farm animals?), we've already established that marriage is CONSENSUAL (you believe between a man and a woman, I believe between two loving individuals, regardless of their gender). How can an animal give consent? It can't. (Surprisingly, I believe 16 states don't have any law against beastiality, which IS a sin in the Bible- Leviticus xx 15: "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.") I don't understand how you can jump from saying someone who loves another HUMAN, granted one of the same sex, would also be interested in their cat. Marriage is about love and devotion and respect, not simple sexual gratification, which apparently some people get by having sex with animals. It's unfair and irrational to assume that gay people, just because they're gay, would be inclined to beastiality.
do you object more to a gay marriage actually using the term "marraige", because you feel that should be reserved for only heterosexual couples? Or do you oppose "civil unions" as well, because of your religious beliefs? If the latter, there's a reason we have a seperation of church and state. You can keep your beliefs and I respect that you have them even though I disagree, but I still don't want them infringing on MY unalienable rights."

hmmm | Facebook

I think that's a very strong statement right there.

Okay, since you posted it to here where I highlighted a bold above - I would like to do the same about gay. " If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable ( abnominable ). They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev. 20:13 NIV. -- " Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Romans 1: 24-27 NIV

Byrdie714 · 11-20-2008, 08:22 AM

Becareful folks---remember that religious discussion isn't allowed.

**Liebling:-)))** · 11-20-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Okay, since you posted it to here where I highlighted a bold above - I would like to do the same about gay. " If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable ( abnominable ). They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev. 20:13 NIV. -- " Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Romans 1: 24-27 NIV

Is the bible verus reason why they obey to sentence the people to death over homosexuality in Islam countries?

**Maria** · 11-20-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Becareful folks---remember that religious discussion isn't allowed.

Yes, I am aware. I won't do it after my last post since Shel posted hers from the F/B and I would like to show mine as well -- without discussin' any further.

**Maria** · 11-20-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Is the bible verus reason why they obey to sentence the people to death over homosexuality in Islam countries?

I am not talkin' about Islam countries. I am talkin' about against the universe. Please, do not bring anymore of this. Ok ?

I apologized if my recent post have made you brought this issue up, but please, don't start any further due to AD's rules. You can PM me anytime to discuss this issue and I would be more than glad to discuss through PM.

Hwy99 · 11-20-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Okay, since you posted it to here where I highlighted a bold above - I would like to do the same about gay. " If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable ( abnominable ). They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev. 20:13 NIV. -- " Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Romans 1: 24-27 NIV

I thought the Christianity don't follow the old testament?

**Jiro** · 11-20-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

I thought the Christianity don't follow the old testament?

some does. Old Testament is not dead.

Hwy99 · 11-20-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

some does. Old Testament is not dead.

Do they still follow it to chop the hand off of those theives?

PowerON · 11-20-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Do they still follow it to chop the hand off of those theives?

Yes! In other country! Maybe somewhere here that they don't want us know.

Byrdie714 · 11-20-2008, 11:23 AM

I repeat....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Becareful folks---remember that religious discussion isn't allowed.

Save your religious discussions for the religious thread.

Oh....that's right--you can't!

We have a very good discussion going on here--we don't need this to be hi-jacked into a religious/moral discussion.

Thanks!

jillio · 11-20-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

I am not talkin' about Islam countries. I am talkin' about against the universe. Please, do not bring anymore of this. Ok ?

I apologized if my recent post have made you brought this issue up, but please, don't start any further due to AD's rules. You can PM me anytime to discuss this issue and I would be more than glad to discuss through PM.

Because the universe is composed of many different cultures and many different religions, you cannot use your own religious beliefs to justify anything going on anywhere other than in your own backyard. Please do not presume to speak for the universe. You are a distinct minority in your beliefs when it comes to the universe.

Nor can you use your religious belief system to decide the right or wrong of a legal issue such as civil rights. Civil rights are a secular matter for the state to decide. The law must be used to make equitable that which judgemental religious beliefs seek to deny to others.

11-17-2008, 10:09 PM	#481 (permalink)
lsfoster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 432	Okay, so I don't know why I've been putting this off for so long, but here it is: the penultimate "you have no actual argument for why gay marriage should not be allowed" thread. (I know you're all excited). So here's the deal, we might forget sometimes, but our country is pretty much built on this little document called "The Constitution". There's this little part in there called "The 14th Amendment", and it starts like this, "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment Now when it comes to the constitution, we tend to go by legislative interpretation, as well as legal precedent. The reason that none of this should even be an issue is that basically all of this was covered just about 40 years ago in the Loving v. Virginia case. This was the case that struck down all the interracial marriage bans. If you don't want to go through this link and read the whole thing, here are the important parts. According to the record of this case, it was stated that,"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). " Placing marriage firmly within the confines of the 14th amendment. The court also stated, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)." Which pretty clearly states that although marriage is a State matter, they are still bound by their duties to the US Constitution, and specifically to the 14th amendment. Loving v. Virginia So here's what it boils down to: You can disagree with gay marriage, you can disagree with homosexuality in general, you can think that marriage has a specific meaning. None of it matters. The US Supreme Court has, essentially, already ruled on gay marriage, it just doesn't seem to want to admit it. Which is sad, because it's actually very simple. - States are bound by the 14th amendment. - The 14th amendment says that no state can deny a citizen their rights and privileges, or deprive them of life, liberty, or property. - The US Supreme Court has already said that marriage is included in the rights covered by the 14th amendment. Legally, there is no real argument for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. If there's something I'm missing, I'd really love to know about it. (Note: this is also why DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.) __________________ "Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

11-18-2008, 05:18 AM	#482 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Sussi 7.7.86 - 18.6.09 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 31,038	:rofl2: to posts from #434 to #448. I laugh sooo hard with pain.... __________________

11-18-2008, 03:58 PM	#486 (permalink)
lsfoster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 432	I'm noticing a distinct lack of arguments suddenly. Interesting.... __________________ "Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

11-18-2008, 04:53 PM	#490 (permalink)
KarissaMann05 Premium Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 6,381	I don't really read many pages.. but I can see some pointless posts and I am just disappointed that someone claimed a such nonsense thing to say... =/ *glomping the homosexual marriage* __________________ "Pragmatic language is a vital social skill that enables the school-aged child to navigate their way through demanding social situations." -- R. Owens

11-20-2008, 08:02 AM	#499 (permalink)
lsfoster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 432	Yeah, I just look like 12-year old boy. The avatar is amazingly accurate. No problem. __________________ "Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-18-2008, 03:59 PM	#487 (permalink)
Byrdie714 Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 8,941	Because they know they are on the losing end of it.

11-19-2008, 01:56 AM	#492 (permalink)
wildbank Registered User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Posts: 4	It is easy to predict that there one day will be no bans on any kind of marriage, SOON. It is about being human having rights to choose lifestyle, whom to marry or share relationships. When enough states are tolerant, California law would blush in the end. Give it time but we are not giving up applying our demand for equal rights to our legislators.

11-20-2008, 08:22 AM	#501 (permalink)
Byrdie714 Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 8,941	Becareful folks---remember that religious discussion isn't allowed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode