Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 02:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The supemes have been very clear that they have no intention of getting into the middle of cultural struggles, so until this debate reaches some conclusion I would not expect the court to rule on the question of homosexual behaviour being a constitutionally protected individual freedom.


You are lying again. Your statement has no basis in fact or in law.

Our courts are mandated to decide cases and controversies brought before them by individuals who are injured by state-sponsored oppression.

In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an anti-gay state constitutional amendment. In his dissent, Justice Scalia accused the Court of improperly involving itself in a culture war. That accusation, however, did not stop the Court from complying with its duty and enforcing the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that the liberty to engage in sexual conduct (including homosexual conduct) between two consenting adults is protected by the Constitution. In the Marriage Cases, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the State unlawfully discriminated against gay couples by excluding them from exercising the fundamental right to marry.
Copper Seth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 03:28 pm
@Copper Seth,
I'd like you to address my previous post, Debra.

Debra you obviously have some issue deep at heart that troubles you and makes you say mean things to complete strangers. Your need to always be right, regardless the cost, is understandable, but I think unecessary. So, you can leave your strawman and ad hominem arguments at home.

Quote:
"Your comments below are nothing more than ill-informed opinions unsupported by any facts or reference to any authority"


Really, I thought that by citing Loving v. Virginia, which I have read and which I understand. I have even read the cases it cites in designating marriage as a right. I have even read the cases that followed it, which discuss whether marriage even is a right. I even cited them. You fool no one with statements like this. And, you provide no citations or references for your own statements.

Quote:
"Loving dealt with MARRIAGE."


As you said yourself, "The Court in Loving never considered whether or not the Loving marriage was "consummated." " Loving did not deal with marriage. It dealt with the criminlization of miscegenation. Its reference to marriage as a right was dicta, meaning not a part of its ruling. Prior to 1966 the supreme court never was asked nor did it rule that marriage was a right. It alluded to such, but always in dicta. If you want the citation for that, go to Fundamental Principles of Family Law, Second Edition, Lynn D. Wardle, page 58.

The court there never held that the choice was a fundamental right. It said, in dicta, "the fredom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and canot be infringed by the State." (Id. p. 61). This is not the same as "the choice of whom to marry resides with the individual." If anything, the court said, "the choice of which race to marry resides with the individual." To expand this dicta to mean that we have to accept SSM is beyond the intention and context of the court.

I never said that the Loving court considered whether it had been consummated, as you fallaciously state. I said, "Loving considered a consummate marriage." Thus, the court presummed that the marriage was consummated, as required by Virginia and Washington DC, where they were actually married.

Quote:
There are many married homosexual couples in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut that have "consummated" their marriages.


No, there are not. Homosexuals cannot consummate their marriage by performing a procreative act. This is the meaning of consummation. Not that the act results in procreation, but that the person is able to perform the act. And, generally, a marriage performed for an 80-year old on his death bed may be challenged for several other reasons (capacity being one of them).

Quote:
Marriage is a fundamental right....Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.


Where is your citation for this one? Because you are confusing several issues of Constitutional Law. When refering to Equal Protection and discrimination, the courts use that test ONLY when the class is "SUSPECT", or meets three criteria. In re Marriage Cases waived the most important one, immutable characteristic, simply because religion cannot be discriminated against and it is not an immutable characteristic. This is because *everybody with me now* religion gets its own Constitutional provision protecting it from discrimination. (In re Marraige Cases, p. 842; Cal Const Art 1 Sec 4). Religion has never been subject to Equal Protection analysis. That analysis is preserved for unconsidered distinctions, such as race. Gender doesn't even that get kind of scrutiny. It gets intermediate scrutiny. Other classifications get rational basis review, which means that the gov only has to have a rational basis for distinguishing along the lines it does (age falls under this category). So, please, again, I implore you to only refer to the law when you know it. Otherwise, you spread bad information for everyone to see. I'm really tryign to save you from yourself, as much as everyone else from your mistaken information.

As far as I can tell, I am in agreement with you on this one though. But I can't help but think that your analysis is lacking. You see, you assume that the state has no interest in preserving marriage. But it does. In fact, the CA SC even says it, several times, in the In re Marriage Cases. In fact, it is one of the most compelling of state interests. And this law is narrowly tailored to preserving that definition: it is exactly the same. You, however, lack a compelling interest in extending the definition. Yes, perhapos a good one, but one that lacks proper analysis.

Quote:
How can you look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?
Marriage for heterosexual couples vs. Civil Unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. That's separate and unequal.


Where are your citations for these conclusions? First of all, how is it seperate? How is it unequal? And, as we will get to later, how are the relationships equal?

Quote:
That's like saying if freedom of speech was a fundamental right, then the state could never punish defamation or fighting words.


That's kinda my point, right? Look, we know that speech is fundamental because it is specifically provided for in the Constitution. Other rights have been read into the Constitution (both Fed and State), but in the end, none of them are universal. I never said that speech wasn't fundamental or universal, I simply said that the right to marry is not universal. And you helped me out by pointing out that even ones we hold so dear, like speech and religion, are not entirely protected. So, why is it that we can abridge speech, but not marriage? Why is it that speech, the first right, is less protected than marriage? You seem to take that stand, but I don't. I think marriage has its limits, just like speech.

Quote:
mandates compulsory attendance under the penalty of law


I just want to clarify this one, and its no big thing. State's cannot mandate public school attendance. They can mandate school attendance, but not public school attendence. (Prince v Mass; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Pierce v Society of Sisters).

Quote:
Education at public expense is not a right.


Where is your citation for this one? Because, as far as I can tell, this is not true for most jurisdictions. (American Jurisprudence, Schools, Sec. 242). It is interesting though. While there is a compelling interest in having state run schools to educate the public, it has not created a fundamental right. Yet, the compelling state interest in marriage and in preserving it somehow rises to that level of fundamental right, so much so that it cannot be infringed for any reason. Not even to protect the very definition that was used when the right was first uttered.

Quote:
The government must serve and protect ALL the people--EVERYONE--even disfavored classes of people.


That is true to a point. I wonder if you would fight this hard to protect the class of people who believe in a "mythology." Or, would you use their beliefs against them? Would you persecute them for their faith? Would you condemn them to secondary class status? Oh, wait, I think you already have. So, I know your answers to those.

But to answer the assumption posed in your unverified statement: I think the government should protect every class of citizen. In fact, I even said that: Homosexuals deserve to have their relationships recognized. But, going back to your whole "necessary and compelling" analysis: it is not necessary to call those relationships "marriages" to achieve that goal of protection. Giving them something that is worthy of their distinctly and fundamentally different relatinships satisfies that goal perfectly.

Finally, you get to my "unsupported conclusion." But, for one, I don't see you supporting yourself in refuting my little analogy. And, for another, you failed completely to grasp the concept. Look closely, and you will see that I specifically refered to the couples. And I ask you to please refute the conclusion that a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will be biologically similar. Because if you have one man and one woman compared to two men or two women, you will have obvious differences between the two groups. I guess I could use some sources to proove that to you, but I would have thought that high school bio helped you figure that one out.

And as for the other -logicallies, well, I have to rest on the same common sense source. If you can refute the fact, then you have really done something tremendous.

Finally, I am sorry that you failed to see how I followed my own advice. I feel strongly, perhaps just as strongly as you do about your cause, that marriage should be preserved, and has been. I expressed my respect for homosexuals by saying they deserve respect and something that reflects their relationships. I expressed respect for their rights, and I agree with Fam Code 297.5 which grants them equality. I wonder, however, how you have shown any respect.

All I ask is that you stop the claims that Prop 8 violates the constitution, because it doesn't. (And here's my proof) Similar amendments have been enacted in 30 states, and some even go further in not even allowing Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. None of these has been found unconstitutional, even under federal analysis. The one court that was asked that question said it does not violate the US Constitution (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 8th Circ 2006) Yes, arguments can be made, but do not confuse an argument for fact.

Please, just understand that we do not think that this is an equality issue, because homosexuals have an equal system for their relationships. One that grants them just as much respect, rights, benefits, and obligations as I will have with my fiancee. I understand that you don't want to see that, but that is how I see it. I think it is fair, equal, and proper. And so do 6.8 million other Californians, 29 other states, and most of the world (only six countries in the world allow same-sex marriage: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005) and the US (2003). (Fundamental Principles of Family Law, supra, p. 118).

I leave you with a great quote by Gen. Colin Powell: "Skin Color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (Id., at 116).
[/quote]
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 03:58 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
You are lying again. Your statement has no basis in fact or in law.

Our courts are mandated to decide cases and controversies brought before them by individuals who are injured by state-sponsored oppression.



The justices routinely give interviews about the court (as in most every one does and does so many times over their career on the bench), many times the video ones are on CSpan. I have seen several of these from different justices, and they all say that the court is reluctant to engage in culture wars, that if at all possible the court wishes to wait till the citizens have made up their minds. You will also hear the justices say that they have not accepted a direct challenge to Roe v Wade for the vary same reason. You will also hear from many quarters that it was a mistake for the court to get involved in the 2000 election, and that they hurt themselves by doing so and this are unlikely to get into another squabble where the citizens are roughly divided. The Court cannot function unless its mandates are followed, and they can ill afford to squander more legitimacy by getting out ahead of the country on abortion or homosexuality, by getting out of their lane again.

The people decide, the courts follow......courts usurp their role in society at a cost to their power, and can not do this on a regular basis. For the supremes to support gays marriage when the people have not overwhelmingly done so they must do it only if the issue is of over riding importance to the constitutional framework. Despite claims that society grossly violates the constitution by limiting gay rights, there is well over 200 years of precedence for doing exactly that ( Precedence being a concept that the courts take very seriously, especially supreme court justices). I can't see the SC getting all in a tizzy about homosexual rights, I think that they will stand back and let other institutions in the societal governance system work.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:00 pm
@Copper Seth,
Copper Seth wrote:
Debra you obviously have some issue deep at heart that troubles you and makes you say mean things to complete strangers. Your need to always be right, regardless the cost, is understandable, but I think unecessary. So, you can leave your strawman and ad hominem arguments at home.


If there's something "obviously" wrong with anyone, then there is something wrong with YOU when you demand that people be nice to you when you're wiping your ass with our Constitution. You just finished lynching your fellow man at the nearest hanging tree; you're still wearing your white sheet and cone-shaped mask; and now you're upset because I'm not treating you with respect? Get a grip. You didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

I am NOT the one who is abusing the power and authority of the state as a means to deprive others of the same rights that I am entitled to enjoy. That's YOU.

I am NOT the one advocating or defending state discrimination against people whom I disfavor. That's YOU.

There is nothing "obviously" wrong with me.

By alleging there is something wrong with me, YOU are attempting to make YOURSELF feel better about being a bigot who willfully advocates and participates in the oppression of your fellow human beings.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You are lying again. Your statement has no basis in fact or in law.

Our courts are mandated to decide cases and controversies brought before them by individuals who are injured by state-sponsored oppression.



The justices routinely give interviews about the court (as in most every one does and does so many times over their career on the bench), many times the video ones are on CSpan. I have seen several of these from different justices, and they all say that the court is reluctant to engage in culture wars, that if at all possible the court wishes to wait till the citizens have made up their minds. You will also hear the justices say that they have not accepted a direct challenge to Roe v Wade for the vary same reason. You will also hear from many quarters that it was a mistake for the court to get involved in the 2000 election, and that they hurt themselves by doing so and this are unlikely to get into another squabble where the citizens are roughly divided. The Court cannot function unless its mandates are followed, and they can ill afford to squander more legitimacy by getting out ahead of the country on abortion or homosexuality, by getting out of their lane again.

The people decide, the courts follow......courts usurp their role in society at a cost to their power, and can not do this on a regular basis. For the supremes to support gays marriage when the people have not overwhelmingly done so they must do it only if the issue is of over riding importance to the constitutional framework. Despite claims that society grossly violates the constitution by limiting gay rights, there is well over 200 years of precedence for doing exactly that ( Precedence being a concept that the courts take very seriously, especially supreme court justices). I can't see the SC getting all in a tizzy about homosexual rights, I think that they will stand back and let other institutions in the societal governance system work.


You're still a LIAR. You said, "The supemes have been very clear that they have no intention of getting into the middle of cultural struggles, so until this debate reaches some conclusion I would not expect the court to rule on the question of homosexual behaviour being a constitutionally protected individual freedom."

The highest court in the land--the UNITED STATES Supreme Court--has already ruled that consensual homosexual conduct is an individual liberty interest that is protected by the Constitution.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:16 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
By alleging there is something wrong with me, YOU are attempting to make YOURSELF feel better about being a bigot who willfully advocates and participates in the oppression of your fellow human beings.


Society always works to oppress undesirable behaviour, society could not function otherwise, and without working together as a collective we all would parish. I am so not seeing a problem with exercising oppression.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:29 pm
@Lightwizard,
Stupid people may or may not be but if anyone have sex with another person knowing they are HIV positive and not tell thier sexual partner that fact they was committing murder.

I am sure Debre will give some opinion why that is not so legaaly but morally that is surely the case.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:59 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
The highest court in the land--the UNITED STATES Supreme Court--has already ruled that consensual homosexual conduct is an individual liberty interest that is protected by the Constitution.

in Lawrence v texas the supremes ruled that consenting adults are protected by the privacy clause of the constitution when conducting homosexual behaviour BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.....it says nothing about societies right to police itself in the public sphere. Saying the you can **** a person of your sex in your bedroom in private is far far away from saying that you are constitutionally protected for all typically homosexual behaviour.

You should also take note that the court only took up sodomy laws after almost every state had at least stopped using the laws, and the majority had even taken them off of the books...IE the people had already decided. The people have not decided about public homosexual behaviour, nor about homosexual unions/marriage.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 05:26 pm
To those who seem to know definitions of words from the Idiot's Dictionary, all other dictionaries including Merriam Webster define consummated as:


consummated
One entry found.


Main Entry:
2con·sum·mate Listen to the pronunciation of 2consummate
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌmāt\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
con·sum·mat·ed; con·sum·mat·ing
Date:
1530

transitive verb1 a: finish , complete <consummate a business deal> b: to make perfect c: achieve2: to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse <consummate a marriage>intransitive verb: to become perfected
" con·sum·ma·tive Listen to the pronunciation of consummative Listen to the pronunciation of consummative \ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌmā-tiv, kən-ˈsə-mə-tiv\ adjective
" con·sum·ma·tor Listen to the pronunciation of consummator \ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌmāt-ər\ noun

Not a word in any dictionary qualifying this as procreative.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 05:43 pm
@Copper Seth,
Copper Seth wrote:
Loving did not deal with marriage. It dealt with the criminlization of miscegenation. Its reference to marriage as a right was dicta, meaning not a part of its ruling.


So now you think you're a constitutional scholar? Before claiming that the Court's "reference" to the fundamental right to marry was mere dicta and was NOT part of the Court's ruling, perhaps you should have consulted an authoritative source. Afterall, the SUPREME COURT itself disagrees with your ill-informed assessment of its ruling in Loving:

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/434/374.html

Quote:
The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.


Your statement that the Court's finding that marriage was a fundamental right was mere dicta is FALSE. Please also NOTE that two constitutional clauses are involved, not just the equal protection clause.



Copper Seth wrote:
Quote:
Marriage is a fundamental right....Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.


Where is your citation for this one? Because you are confusing several issues of Constitutional Law. When refering to Equal Protection and discrimination, the courts use that test ONLY when the class is "SUSPECT", or meets three criteria....


Again, your post is based on ignorance. You have not demonstrated any understanding whatsoever of constitutional law. You are the one who is confused because you don't understand that the strict scrutiny test is applied whenever a law burdens (denies or disparages) a fundamental right and/or when it targets a suspect class.

Marriage is a fundamental right (a liberty interest) secured by the due process clause. We do not define fundamental rights by reference to those who are included or excluded from exercising those rights. We identify the right at issue, i.e. MARRIAGE, and then we apply the strict scrutiny test to determine whether the denial or deprivation of that right to the person(s) excluded is NECESSARY to serve a compelling state interest. Moral disapproval alone of the excluded person or classes of persons is NOT a legitimate state interest, let alone a compelling one. (See Lawrence v. Texas.)

It is common knowledge among people who are informed about constitutional jurisprudence that the State may not deny or disparage a fundamental rights unless doing so is NECESSARY to serve a compelling state interest. This is called the "Strict Scrutiny" test. If the denial or disparagement is not narrowly tailored (meaning, if it is over inclusive or under inclusive), then it is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/434/374.html

Quote:
When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. See, e. g., Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 686 ; Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S., at 262 -263; San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S., at 16 -17; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144 (1972).


See also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/620.html

Quote:
. . . if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. . .


If a law burdens a fundamental right (e.g., the right to marry) secured by the due process clause, then the Court applies the "strict scrutiny" test.

If a law targets a suspect class protected under the equal protection clause, then the Court applies "strict scrutiny" test. The California Supreme Court held that it is a suspect classification when the State discriminates against persons based on gender or sexual orientation.

If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, then the Court applies the "rational basis" test. As many courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have noted, however, anti-gay laws do not even satisfy the rational basis test.

Because you don't comprehend the foregoing, your entire post is nothing more than nonsensical gibberish.

0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 05:57 pm
@Debra Law,
If they don't know basic definitions of words, how do you expect them to define liberty or freedom? Answer: in their myopic, contrived world they have decided that they know best. Their judgement supercedes the constitution and the Supreme Court.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 06:05 pm
an interesting take by an individual who is more aware of the constitutional process than Debra is
Quote:
Abstract:
This Article argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is not unconstitutional - at least not yet. DOMA provides that States need not recognize same-sex marriages (or judgments in connection with such marriages) performed in sister States. The Article first shows that the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down as unconstitutional state laws that criminalized sodomy, has not invalidated the DOMA. Lawrence is best understood as having left undecided the constitutional status of same-sex marriage, and the Article explains the benefits of the Court's having held back its constitutional judgment on this subject at this time.
The Article then debunks the many arguments that numerous scholars proffered before Lawrence that DOMA exceeded Congress' authority. Claims that the DOMA violates state sovereignty by interfering with a family law subject that appropriately falls to the domain of the States are premised on a mischaracterization of the DOMA: the statute does not regulate family law as such, but serves the quintessentially federal function of determining the extraterritorial effect of State law. Arguments that the DOMA undermines Full Faith and Credit's fundamental principle of unifying the country overlook a second animating principle behind Full Faith and Credit with which the DOMA is fully consistent - the preservation of meaningfully empowered States. Furthermore, while virtually all scholarly critiques have assumed that the DOMA authorizes States to deviate from Supreme Court precedent regarding the enforcement of judgments, the Article shows that DOMA actually fills a gap in the Court's jurisprudence in a manner that is consistent with precedent. Even were this not so, DOMA would not be unconstitutional, the Article argues, because Congress has authority to legislate full faith and credit rules that vary from those identified in Supreme Court opinions.

In the end, the Article's analysis suggests that if and when the Court strikes down the DOMA, its unconstitutionality is appropriately grounded in Lawrence-type liberty grounds rather than on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause; the Full Faith and Credit Clause should not be used to thwart differences across states in respect of substantive policies that themselves are not unconstitutional. In the interim, DOMA is best understood as an instance of congressional participation in the process of defining our country's constitutional culture; the Court has not yet decided the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, and the DOMA reflects the political branches' contribution, by means of the institutional tools at their disposal, to the process of deciding how American political culture should deal with the incidents of gay life. DOMA's actual effects on constitutional culture remain to be seen: will it shape societal views, prompt angry opposition, or something else? Certainly until the Supreme Court takes a definitive position, and perhaps even after, other societal actors (including States and citizens themselves) are entitled to react to Congress' currently reflected views on same-sex marriage and thereby participate in the ongoing development of American constitutional culture.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898895
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 06:11 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
If they don't know basic definitions of words, how do you expect them to define liberty or freedom? Answer: in their myopic, contrived world they have decided that they know best. Their judgement supercedes the constitution and the Supreme Court.


Individual freedom is not the only interest of the republic, those of you who think that the constitution backs all of your freedom desires are sadly deluded.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 06:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
in Lawrence v texas the supremes ruled that consenting adults are protected by the privacy clause of the constitution when conducting homosexual behaviour BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.....it says nothing about societies right to police itself in the public sphere. Saying the you can **** a person of your sex in your bedroom in private is far far away from saying that you are constitutionally protected for all typically homosexual behaviour.


In addition to being a liar (which has been proven), you're ignorant.

Quote:
To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.


Lawrence v. Texas
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 06:50 pm
Quote:
In addition to being a liar (which has been proven), you're ignorant.


Illuminating *sarcasm*....I've got the executive director of the ACLU on my side, who have you got? http://books.google.com/books?id=STJjDJJsXT0C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=homosexual+rights+%22supreme+court%22&source=web&ots=ivOq-Cs5CR&sig=9xqNVFS38p9c5Yc8jykNVXy7c5w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

furthermore Kennedy himself said
Quote:
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 07:06 pm
where we are at the moment:
Quote:
Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).


http://www.mixx.com/stories/3017933/newsweek_poll_support_for_gay_marriage_grows_newsweek_politics_newsweek_com

6 in 10 don't want gay marriage, yet to the pro gay marriage side at a2k the 60% are ignorant bigots...delusional much??

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 07:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
In addition to being a liar (which has been proven), you're ignorant.


Illuminating *sarcasm*....I've got the executive director of the ACLU on my side, who have you got? http://books.google.com/books?id=STJjDJJsXT0C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=homosexual+rights+%22supreme+court%22&source=web&ots=ivOq-Cs5CR&sig=9xqNVFS38p9c5Yc8jykNVXy7c5w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

furthermore Kennedy himself said
Quote:
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime



Again, you fail to comprehend that NEITHER homosexual couples NOR heterosexual couples are NOT allowed to engage in sexual conduct in PUBLIC. Where else would protected sexual conduct by anyone take place except in private?

You fail to understand that Lawrence was NOT about the right to "screw in private." By claiming that Lawrence was only about private sexual conduct, you demean the issue involved and you ignore the Court's words:

Quote:
To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.


Lawrence is about individual's liberty to choose his or her partner whether that partner is of the same or opposite gender:

Quote:
When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.


The Court stressed this in the following passage:

Quote:
Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.





hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 08:27 pm
@Debra Law,
over and over again I read noted legal minds say that this case does not mean what you and the rest of the gay rights agitators say that it does:

Quote:
Still, those who applauded last week's ruling for "confirming the dignity" of homosexuals were setting the bar rather low, given the barriers that remain. "It's one thing to say there's a fundamental right to sexual intimacy," observes Harvard law professor Richard Fallon, "and another to say there's a fundamental right to marriage." Vermont's civil-unions law is still a kind of "separate but equal" equivocation; the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted in 1993 has not stopped 9,000 service members from being discharged since then. And in most states, gays do not enjoy the same protection from employment discrimination that others do. Even as he welcomed "the homosexual emancipation," David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign lamented that "you can still be fired from your job for being gay."

Thus the activists' notion that gay marriage is an inevitable outcome of the ruling may be little more than wishful thinking. "When people say the decision means a lot," says Mary Coombs of the University of Miami law school, "what they're doing is not so much saying what it means but what they are going to argue it means. Part of what this will do is energize both the gay-rights movement and the Christian Fundamentalist right." --Reported by Perry Bacon Jr. and Mark Thompson/Washington, Jeffrey Ressner/Los Angeles and Andrea Sachs and Jyoti Thottam/New York

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005162-2,00.html

Why is that? Your claims of legal wisdom are highly suspect.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 08:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Debra seem to be off in some universe of her very own and if you dare to point this out to her you get call a bigot or a liar or whatever.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 08:50 pm
@BillRM,
don't think so, I think debra makes a practice of puffing up her claims as one would puff up a resume, hoping that no one will notice that her claims are highly exaggerated. She certainly believes that the best defense is a good offense, as she is always on the attack but neglects to confront gaping holes in her argument. She is highly rational, but all games. The dishonesty is what we have come to expect from the wingnuts, but the loony left seems to have adopted the method as well.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 41
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 08:28:07