Appellate court rules on Prop 8

[Ms Tree]

If rights are inalienable then how can they e voted on? I can see voting on a bond issue or if the speed limit should be raised but we don't vote on peoples rights. We do not hold a vote on whether Christians should be able to go to church. I do not want my rights put up for a vote. Do you? BTW, it's marriage, not gay marriage, not interracial marriage, not black marriage or any other sub set of marriage. Just plain marriage.

As for leaving marriage alone and creating something else there is the issue of separate but equal which is not separate and never equal. Marriage has changed quite a bit since its origins. In the good old days marriage was a product of alliances and power. The woman was property to be exchanged for a dowry. Marriage for love is a relatively new version of marriage. So the argument of lets leave marriage alone seems to ring a bit hollow.

I also disagree with the assessment that government co-opted marriage. I think it is the other way around. Had religion not be able to get government to 'protect' marriage we would not be in the mess we are in now. Anyone would be able to marry anyone(s) they chose as it would be merely a religious institution governed only by what ever rules any particular religion chose. Government would set up the contract between people in terms of assets and what not. With out government protection the word marriage would not have the same standing as it does now.

So long as marriage remains a government function then everyone must be allowed access to it. It will happen. More and more states are allowing it and at some point the SCOTUS will be forced to accept it. Personally I do not think they want to because when they hand down a decision that says everyone has the right to get married it will kick off a chit storm which they don't want to be involved in.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head with this piece of the above post:

So long as marriage remains a government function then everyone must be allowed access to it

My question then still remains, Is it an appropriate roll of the Federal Government? I say NO!

 

[delldude]

I'll laugh my ass off if it gets before SCOTUS and they say its a states rights issue.

 

[Ms Tree]

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head with this piece of the above post:


My question then still remains, Is it an appropriate roll of the Federal Government? I say NO!

I agree, Government should not be involved in it at all. How ever I do not see government ever being let out of the marriage business. I believe religions have far too much at stake. So long as government is involved they get to have a say. As it stands now, gays and polygamists do not have equal standing when it comes to marriage. There are no legal arguments against it, only religious/moral ones. Given that the term marriage is engrained in our way of life, even were government to only issue certificates of union (or what ever verbiage is agreed upon) people will still say that 'we are married'.

I do not think religion wants to surrender control over who gets married and right now, government is the only thing giving them that control. With out government backing up religion, I could get married to a chair if y religion says it's OK. Anyone can start a religion and base it on anything they want to.

 

[Ms Tree]

Federal judge rules DOMA violates the COTUS.

Today's decision in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management is notable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its role as the latest nail in DOMA's coffin.

First, Judge White declared that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny in an equal protection analysis.

Second, the court distinguished old and outdated precedent that Judge Randy Smith recently used in his dissent in Perry v. Brown, highlighting the doctrinal vacuum that is denial of gay rights.

Third, in dismantling the proffered and any conceivable justification for DOMA Section 3, the court authoritatively rejected House Republican attempts to buttress DOMA with recourse to certain conceptions of morality.

Fourth, Judge White's reliance on the other DOMA cases and Ninth Circuit precedent in other gay rights cases emphasizes the primacy of a federal litigation approach in our quest for marriage recognition.

Towleroad

 

[SparrowHawk]

From tonight's CNN Debate:

Should the government be involved in issues like contraception? Ron Paul says no, because that's where the problem arises. Congress legislates morality; people of differing religious persuasions then fight incessantly over whose morality will be the law of the land. Much like abortion or gay marriage, the answer, according to Paul, is to return the decision to use birth control, and the cost of using it, to states and individuals.

 

[Ms Tree]

I am starting to agree with 777. Your obsession with all things Paul is disconcerting. Who cares what Paul, Obama or any other two bit politicians think about ... well anything. A link was posted about a legal opinion that was rendered. Do you have an opinion on the issue?

 

[SparrowHawk]

I am starting to agree with 777. Your obsession with all things Paul is disconcerting. Who cares what Paul, Obama or any other two bit politicians think about ... well anything. A link was posted about a legal opinion that was rendered. Do you have an opinion on the issue?

It was easier to vut and paste his point from the debate then it was to type mine as my view is exactly The same. Be disconcerted all you like. My quoting from the debate was merely expedient. Of course when I published the legal argument that went before the 9th I was OK, So I would submit to you that your blatant bias against all things Ron Paul is the issue NOT my support of a person with a 30 year+ track record of consistency of views. The coincidental fact that my views are EXACTLY the same as Dr Paul

 

[Ms Tree]

It was easier to vut and paste his point from the debate then it was to type mine as my view is exactly The same. Be disconcerted all you like. My quoting from the debate was merely expedient. Of course when I published the legal argument that went before the 9th I was OK, So I would submit to you that your blatant bias against all things Ron Paul is the issue NOT my support of a person with a 30 year+ track record of consistency of views. The coincidental fact that my views are EXACTLY the same as Dr Paul

Posting a legal argument is a far cry from posting an argument from a two bit politician. That's why I said I did not care about the opinions of Obama or Paul or any two bit politician. I guess you missed that part. I rarely quote a politician other than when I am poking fun at them.

Coincidental? Yea right.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Posting a legal argument is a far cry from posting an argument from a two bit politician. That's why I said I did not care about the opinions of Obama or Paul or any two bit politician. I guess you missed that part. I rarely quote a politician other than when I am poking fun at them.

Coincidental? Yea right.

Believe what you will. I'm not sure why but I really don't give a damn about this issue and never have and likely never will. I don't care what the courts decide as it effects me not even a little.

I think it is probably an issue for states to decide. To me there are no "Gay Rights", "Women's Rights" or "Black rights" only individual rights. Individuals have the right to their Liberty and Property. A case can be made IMO that a gay individual may not have his/her property rights handled equally as far as estate laws and such in which case it would seem to be a state issue.

 

[Ms Tree]

Believe what you will. I'm not sure why but I really don't give a damn about this issue and never have and likely never will. I don't care what the courts decide as it effects me not even a little.

I think it is probably an issue for states to decide. To me there are no "Gay Rights", "Women's Rights" or "Black rights" only individual rights. Individuals have the right to their Liberty and Property. A case can be made IMO that a gay individual may not have his/her property rights handled equally as far as estate laws and such in which case it would seem to be a state issue.

Thankfully some people who were not black cared about civil rights. Thankfully some men cared enough about women's suffrage.

I bet Nancy Reagan did not care too much about stem cell research until she found out it may have helped her husband. I bet Cheney felt much the same way you do about equal rights for homosexuals, at least until he found out his daughter was gay.

I try to care about all peoples rights regardless of whether or not the rights affect me or not.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Thankfully some people who were not black cared about civil rights. Thankfully some men cared enough about women's suffrage.

I bet Nancy Reagan did not care too much about stem cell research until she found out it may have helped her husband. I bet Cheney felt much the same way you do about equal rights for homosexuals, at least until he found out his daughter was gay.

I try to care about all peoples rights regardless of whether or not the rights affect me or not.

well aren't you special! I'm sure Jesus has a seat for you right next to him at the right hand of God..... Oh wait, what? oh......

Nevermind.

 

[Ms Tree]

Not interested in that seat.

I noticed you did not address the issue. Did Paul not give you any talking points?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Not interested in that seat.

I noticed you did not address the issue. Did Paul not give you any talking points?

I feel if the courts rule one way or another, I'm OK with it. I see both sides and when push comes to shove to me it's a matter for the states. Truthfully given the other problems we face I'm not all that concerned about a bunch of Rug Munchers and Rump Wranglers. Let them marry and be miserable like the rest of us now that's Equality I can live with. 😀

How many times do I have to say it!! I don't give a sh*t! Not Today, Not Tomorrow and next week ain't looking good either.

 

[Ms Tree]

Believe what you will. I'm not sure why but I really don't give a damn about this issue and never have and likely never will. I don't care what the courts decide as it effects me not even a little.

How many times do I have to say it!! I don't give a sh*t! Not Today, Not Tomorrow and next week ain't looking good either.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Funny thing about 'other' peoples rights. One day they may be yours as well. Then again, as long as you have yours it's all good huh?