|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,787
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739 |
Gay marriage is just like interracial marriages from the 1940s. no fair rick, at least the danger of a mongrelisation of the whyt race is lessened with gay people, youd think the insanser ends of oppositition to Gay marraige would appreicate that much at least!
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
By the way, I stand by my earlier assertion - the court failed to reconcile the decisions, because it cannot be done. One cannot assert on the one hand that denial of the term marriage is denial of a fundamental interest and with the other say that reestablishing that denial is not a "revision" in the terms of the Constitution. They ducked rationality, logic, and intellectual honesty to rule as they did, and in the process damaged the legal system, perhaps irretrievably. Proposition 22 at the March 7, 2000, primary election and approved by the voters at that election, provides in full: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The Court in The Marriage Cases determined that These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. They went on to describe it as a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society. and We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. Most importantly here, however, the Court went on to say We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. In other words, the word "marriage" has meaning of constitutional dimension. Now, the Court, in its analysis in Strauss v. Horton was faced with something completely different. Proposition 8, unlike Proposition 22, read: "“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Oh... wait. Um, that's exactly the same wording. So... how does the Court distinguish the two? It doesn't. Instead, the Court simply ignores the essence of its previous determination: Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. It has the temerity to call this a "Clarification." By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8;.... We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure. So, in the previous case the Court determined that the use of the term "marriage" was so important in assuring the "dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families" that it was unconstitutional to use a different term. Indeed, the Court explicitly rejected the very argument that it here espouses. The Attorney General, observing that fundamental constitutional rights generally are defined by substance rather than by form, reasons that so long as the state affords a couple all of the constitutionally protected substantive incidents of marriage, the state does not violate the couple’s constitutional right to marry simply by assigning their official relationship a name other than marriage. The Court responded that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. I am sorry, I am so disgusted with the disingenuity of the Court's opinion, that it is hard to go on. It screams hypocrisy. It is impossible to say, on the one hand, that using different terminology imposes "appreciable harm" and in the very next decision determine that "it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure" and terming this "the actual limited effect... upon the preexisting state constitutional right of privacy and due process and upon the guarantee of equal protection of the laws[.]" So much for decency, honor, and consistency.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
All right, Rick, what right-wing site did you crib that from...  Wrote it myself (  ) - swear to God. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
Wasn't the true issue in yesterday's decision is whether or not Prop 8 is an admendment or a revision to the CA Constitutution and the ruling was based soley on that distinction?
...because the questions by the Court in March 2009, preceding this ruling, of the litigants, certainly focused on that distinction.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
Wasn't the true issue in yesterday's decision is whether or not Prop 8 is an admendment or a revision to the CA Constitutution and the ruling was based soley on that distinction? Yes, that was the focus (although not the only issue). But, their conclusion was simply wrong. As Justice Moreno so eloquently put it Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
....In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Rick, you may want to re-read what NWP posted. Yes, one of the issues was whether Prop H8 was a revision or an amendment. After a lengthy, twisted and poor reading of past cases, the court concluded that it would be a revision if it either substantively changed the form of government, as in removing power from one branch of government or another, or, if it substantially affected a fundamental constitutional right.
It went on to explain that use of the term "marriage" -- which as NWP just pointed out the court in its ruling last year had determined was such a "fundamental right" -- was not so fundamental anymore so long as gays had most of the same rights as domestic partners.
In other words, the court directly reversed itself within a year -- a new record -- while disguising its capitulation to hate in page after page of sophistry and tortured logic.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
Rick, you may want to re-read what NWP posted. The one at the top of this page? In other words, the court directly reversed itself within a year -- a new record -- while disguising its capitulation to hate in page after page of sophistry and tortured logic. , thank you very, very much for the synopsis of NW Ps post. I started getting glassy eyed about 25% of the way thru. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
....In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution. Good reasoning. I suspect that this case will go to the US Supreme Court and they'll have to deal with the equal protection clause of the 14th Admendment. ...or they'll simply not hear the case.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
...at any rate, the State of California's Franchise Tax Board has to deal with the 18,000 married gay couples when it comes Tax time - and the rest of us who choose to marry in another State that marrys us was well.
Then there's the census fight. The GW Bush Administration has instructed Census Takers to change gay married couples to "single."
Didya know that?
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853 |
- A jury consists of twelve persons responsible for deciding who has
the better lawyer. ---Robert Frost And an appellate court is responsible for twisting the law in favor of
the more influential party. ---yours truly What I wrote on another thread seems apposite here: During most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court has been the most dangerous, reactionary and irresponsible element in the American system of governance. That was apparent in the Dred Scott decision, during the 1930's, and in 2000, when it outrageously "selected" George W. Bush as president. It is too powerful, and too unchecked; there are many dangers to the American people from their ill-devised Constitution, but the Supreme Court is one of the most dangerous.
As in a dictatorship, it functions well when good people are judges, and it functions very badly and dangerously when bad people rule. So, as long as the present Constitution is in effect, it is very important to have good people there.As is the case at the national level, so is it at the state level. Because of the antiquated and dangerous constitutions modeled after the source of all evil, the US Constitution, basic civil rights are not protected. Even basic equality between men and women is not protected, for heaven's sake! (Remember ERA?) As a part of my earnest and apparently futile effort to save Americans from the fate of Narcissus, I provide a link that indicates how they manage these things in civilized countries: Same-sex Marriage-
|
|
|
|
|
