Prop 8?

Debra Law =

Quote:

Accordingly, although we agree with the Attorney General that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act afford same-sex couples most of the substantive attributes to which they are constitutionally entitled under the state constitutional right to marry, we conclude that the current statutory assignment of different designations to the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples and of same-sex couples properly must be viewed as potentially impinging upon the state constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry.

This statement you posted proves there is no discrimination against homosexuals. We do not legislate how people "feel".

You so called "elitists" feel good about yourselves when you think you can call people bigots when there is no proof of that within my commentary.

I laugh at you!

First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples. In this regard, plaintiffs persuasively invoke by analogy the decisions of the United States Supreme Court finding inadequate a state’s creation of a separate law school for Black students rather than granting such students access to the University of Texas Law School (Sweatt v. Painter,(1950) 339 U.S. 629, 634),67 and a state’s founding of a separate military program for women rather than admitting women to the Virginia Military Institute (United States v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515, 555-556). As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant.

Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second class citizenship. As the Canada Supreme Court observed in an analogous context: “One factor which may demonstrate that legislation that treats a claimant differently has the effect of demeaning the claimant’s dignity is the existence of pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue. . . . ‘ . . . It is logical to conclude that, in most cases, further differential treatment will contribute to the perpetuation or promotion of their unfair social characterization, and will have a more severe impact upon them, since they are already vulnerable.’ ” (M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, 54-55 [¶ 68].)

Third, it also is significant that although the meaning of the term “marriage” is well understood by the public generally, the status of domestic partnership is not. While it is true that this circumstance may change over time, it is difficult to deny that the unfamiliarity of the term “domestic partnership” is likely, for a considerable period of time, to pose significant difficulties and complications for same-sex couples, and perhaps most poignantly for their children, that would not be presented if, like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples were permitted access to the established and well-understood family relationship of marriage....

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

You're a BIGOT and an OPPRESSOR because you abuse the power and authority of the State to discriminate against disfavored individuals and minorities.

Now you add minorities to the discussion?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

...Under our system of government...

Well, look folks. You've made it clear before that you don't give a damn about the will of the people and prefer to have laws passed by liberal courts. Why don't you try to have the three state votes nullified by a court - maybe pretend that it violates the national constitution, since gay marriage was so obviously on the Founders' minds in the 1780s?

Brandon:

Your statements above demonstrate that you have showered yourself in ignorance. That's not acceptable.

From the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the present, millions of our countrymen (and women) have sacrificed their lives and their limbs for FREEDOM from tyranny. An ocean of blood was shed on the bloody battle fields of the Revolutionary War and is still being shed in two wars in the Middle East. Unless you are willing to pronounce that our brave and nobel warriors have shed their blood for naught, then you owe it to them to learn the basic concepts upon which this country was founded and for which we fight to preserve.

Our government was not designed by our founders to be a pure democracy where "the will of the people" prevails regardless of what that "will" may be. In a pure democracy, 51 percent of the people (a majority) is capable of forming a coalition for the purpose of oppressing the remaining 49 percent of the people. However, coalitions of people always shift. One day you might be the beneficiary of a majority coalition, but the next day you could be in the minority.

One day you could be the smug man who holds the torch and lights the fire that burns your fellow citizen at the stake because the majority declared her to be a witch. The next day, however, you won't be so smug when they drag you to the stockade to await your own witch trial. In the absence of checks and balances, the basic rights of individuals (to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) can never be secure from tyranny and oppression in a climate of shifting winds and fires.

Our founders understood that freedom can be lost in many ways, not just at the hands of an oppressive and tyrannical dictator. Individual rights can be lost at the hands of the majority. To protect and secure ALL the people of this nation from tyranny and oppression (in whatever form it takes), our founders designed a consitutional republic with checks and balances distributed among three branches of government. The judicial branch of government is our last bastion of hope and liberty that stands between the individual and the government.

Don't take my word on the foregoing. Read the Federalist Papers. Jump ahead to the Federalist No. 51:

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

Quote:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure….

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights….

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful….

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

Thus, our Founders recognized that the very essense of the REPUBLICAN CAUSE is security for civil rights and justice for ALL: the weaker as well as the more powerful. It is that security and protection that is our birthright as Americans and it will forever be pursued by the weaker classes of persons in civil society until it is obtained. Our republican form of government was designed to enable the liberty interests of the minority to be secured and protected against the injustices of the majority.

If it were not for those damn "liberal" Founders and all those damn "liberals" who came after them who have fought, bled, and died for the security of civil rights for all individuals, we would NOT live in the greatest nation on earth. YOU would not be the beneficiary of the freedoms that you enjoy today. Therefore, when you foam at the mouth and blast the "liberal" courts when they fullfill their designed role and enforce the civil rights of minorities, you are demeaning all of our brave warriors who gave their lives and limbs to create our special form of government and to secure your individual rights.

The connection between polygamy and gay marriage is not that far off.

As the justice's dissent of the Reynolds vs. US case shows that if you allow polygamy, then where do you draw the line, and will judicial precedent justify religious sacrifice of human beings, and so on.

You contrast polygamy with gay marriage by nit picking petty legal ramifications; inheritance, power of attorney, etc. But those were not legal justifications in criminalizing polygamy so they must not have been considerd an issue. Rather, moral and social affects carried the most weight in their decision.

With gay marriage, there are plenty of psychological side affects that have been shown to negatively influence children and society.

You don't promote a single parent family, so why promote a single sex family, when case after case shows that a child must be nourished with both maternal and paternal influences.

And if you really want to exploit the 14the amendment, then I'm sure you will also agree that it would also consider affirmative action to be unconstitutional as well as raising taxes on certain individuals. Right?

Debra, the other side of the argument does not recognize the necessity or even ability of removing one's personal opinion from questions of equality and justice. That's what really gets me about this discussion.

Cycloptichorn

Debra, you are proving my first statement to be ABSOLUTELY correct. If someone does not agree with YOU, their arguments are deemed unworthy of respect by YOU. It sould come to no surprise, then, that you think that my arguments are invalid and false. What qualifies you as the ABSOLUTE authority on this subject matter that you will dismiss any argument that stands against your assumptions and opinions for the only reason that they are FALSE is because YOU say so?

The fundamental right you keep claiming is yours was deemed a fundamental right because it serves the purpose for preserving the human race. You keep forgetting to include the entire quote. So, here it is..."Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." There is a reason it was deemed as a fundamental right...our survival. How does same sex marriage serve the puropse of our survival? Married couples no only are capable of naturally reproducing life, but studies show that children that grow up in two parent homes lead more well adjusted lives. How does this effect society???

First off, homosexuality as a behavior reduces life...the 1.4% of women and 2.8% of men identify themselves as "Homosexual" or "bisexual" account for nearly 70% of HIV cases (DCD HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet, HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men, Center for Disease Control, www.CDC.gov/hiv)... Homosexual men are 1000x more likely to contract AIDS than the general population (The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Deparement of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, National Center for infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, through December 2001)... Homosexual youth are 4x more likely to suffer major depression, 3x more likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, 4x more likely to experience conduct disorders, 4x as likely to commit suicide, 5x more likely to have nicotine dependence, 6x more likely to suffer muldiple disorders, and 6x more likely to have attempted suicide (Theo G.M. Sandiforte, T. Graaf, R. Biji, R. Schnable, P.2001. Same Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence. Archives of General Phychiatry 58:85-91)

Secondly, marriage is designed to be a life long commitment. Studies from a couple countries where same sex marriage is legal shows that homosexual marriages lasted approximately 2 years ...

I would like to point out that you are NOT in favor of equality for ALL. You are for equality for homosexual and heterosexual individuals. YOU are therefore an oppressor to to the bisexual individual, polygamist, and those that want to marry within their own famliy. So, please stop claiming that you are pushing equality for ALL, when you most clearly are NOT.

There is a reason it was deemed as a fundamental right...our survival. How does same sex marriage serve the puropse of our survival?

With nothing but my phone to read this thread, it's been torture of the last few days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s

However, the state does not sanction polygamy. Absolutely no individual is allowed to engage in polygamy. Not one single person in this country is allowed to be married to more than one person at the same time. Accordingly, no state discrimination exists.

Debra Law offers =

Quote:

However, the state does not sanction polygamy. Absolutely no individual is allowed to engage in polygamy. Not one single person in this country is allowed to be married to more than one person at the same time. Accordingly, no state discrimination exists.

EXACTLY. The Federal Govt does not discriminate against homosexuals either.

Have you ever heard of a Health Care Proxy or Durable Power of Attorney?

Go away. You people are annoying.

You are trying to say that homosexuals struggle in relationships and as a community struggle with disease, and somehow that is a legitimate argument against allowing gays to marry. That's not a point. That's spin. Nothing more.

...People in committed monogamous relationships are less likely to be exposed to sexual diseases"

"Banning homosexual marriages because some study indicates that some of those marriages might not be as "enduring" as some heterosexual marriages is not necessary to serve any state interest."

"If the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that marriage is a "life long commitment," then the State could ban divorces. But so long as married heterosexual couples are allowed to divorce, married homosexual couples must be allowed to divorce too."

"You are an oppressor, not me. I have never voted to deny the fundamental right to marry to anyone."