Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:31 pm
@Copper Seth,
Quote:
The government, both federal and state, long ago decided to endorse or acknowledge the institution of marriage as a beneficial institution for society (for whatever reason) and subsequently has offered benefits to married couples, largely of tax and other financial benefits.


That's quite a simplification (and distortion) of government's relationship to marriage. In addition to financial benefits, marriage also establishes certain legal statuses for the parties involved (kinship, for example, as well as affinal ties) and thus makes them subject to family-related rights and responsibilities. Not all of these rights and responsibilities have to do with financial benefits. The ability to establish oneself as kin to another also opens the door to guardianship status in the case of wards (thus allowing guardians access to their wards' school records and such), family visitation rights, spousal medical decisions, etc. So it is simply not true that "Marriage, until recent years and technically still today, is an institution that is completely separate from the government." It may have once been, and it might better off being so, but for now it is not.

0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:55 pm
Lambda & ACLU File Lawsuit to Toss Prop 8
by $
Wednesday Nov 5th, 2008 7:53 PM
On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.
On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.

And the No on 8 campaign has not conceded yet either as California has 30 days to count all the ballots and there can be at least 3 million ballots yet to be counted which could reverse the outcome of Proposition 8 as it is very close. As of Nov 5 at 7:05 p.m., Prop 8 passes with 52% of the vote or 5,387,000. votes

The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Injunctive Relief filed on November 5, 2008 in the California Supreme Court is Strauss v. Horton, Action No. S168047, at
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047

The full text may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html

The press releases on this subject from the ACLU may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html
and
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html

California will continue to honor the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before November 4, 2008 as this heinous "Constitutional amendment" is not retroactive.

The Petition for Writ of Mandate is based on the excellent premise that Proposition 8 "is invalid because it would constitute a CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, and AS SUCH, THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT IT MAY NOT BE ENACTED BY INITIATIVE."

The Petition does an excellent job of discussing the history of civil rights struggles and the necessity of California courts to exercise "their core, traditional constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority." “If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would strike directly at the foundational constitutional principle of equal protection in a manner that far transcends its immediate impact on a particular group, by establishing that an unpopular group may be selectively stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority of voters.”

“Such an attempt to mandate government discrimination against a vulnerable minority in our state’s Constitution, and to prevent the courts from fulfilling their quintessential constitutional role of protecting minorities, would work such a drastic change in our constitutional system that it must be regarded as a REVISION rather than an amendment.”

“Proposition 8 opens the door to step-by-step elimination of state constitutional protections for lesbian and gay Californians and, indeed, for other disfavored minorities, perhaps even based on other suspect classifications.” “See, e.g., Martin Niemöller’s now classic formulation of the dangers posed by failing to recognize that permitting the government to discriminate against one disfavored group undermines the freedom of all: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a German anti-fascist preacher imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937-1945.

As labor says, an injury to one is an injury to all.

We, the supporters of the gay liberation movement, both gay and straight, will not rest until gay marriage is legal.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/05/18549202.php
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 01:05 am
@blueflame1,
blueflame1 wrote:


Thank you for posting this information. I read the brief. Although it could have been written better and it omitted some points of argument that ought to have been made, it is more than adequate. The prospects for invalidating this outrageous constitutional amendment look good.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:15 am
@Debra Law,
Once more same sex so call marriages are a joke on their faces, as there is zero reason to licensed or grant privileges to private sexual relationships that can not by their very nature created children.

The state and society as a whole have zero stake in promoting long term gay relationships unlike heterosexuals relationships due to that fact.

Let get off this PC nonsense that gay relationships are the same as straight ones, they are not and can not be the same.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:42 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Once more same sex so call marriages are a joke on their faces, as there is zero reason to licensed or grant privileges to private sexual relationships that can not by their very nature created children.

You don't need to be married to breed. If a state wanted to promote creating children (which they don't considering what that would mean in terms of building schools etc) then they would discourage marriage or for that matter monogamy.

Your argument above would also require people to have fertility tests prior to the state giving them a marriage license. Your argument is not well thought out.

Marriage is a private thing, and it's terrible that gays are being discriminated like this. And for what reason? Nobody benefits from this. How is a straight marriage on November 3rd and different form one today? How?
BillRM wrote:

The state and society as a whole have zero stake in promoting long term gay relationships unlike heterosexuals relationships due to that fact.

The state and society as a whole have zero stake in condemning long term gay relationships. If they are already gay, they aren't going to be any less gay by making it illegal from them to marry. Letting gays marry doesn't have a negative effect on a straight couples ability to have children and raise them. It's not in the state's interest to do as you claim.

Quite opposite in fact, allowing gays to marry allows more stable households to be established with shared incomes that can be filed jointly and transferable benefits to partners or children. If raising children is a part of the state's concern (a fair claim) then gays should especially be able to marry so they have a better chance of adopting a baby and providing it a family and a home, and an education.
BillRM wrote:

Let get off this PC nonsense that gay relationships are the same as straight ones, they are not and can not be the same.
Strawman. Nobody said they are the same, only that they deserve the same rights and privileges. Nobody in this thread has made an argument from political correctness either.

The simple and short is that you have zero moral or ethical objections to discrimination towards gays. Stop trying to pretend that your opinion on this matter is based on anything but your prejudice.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 08:50 am
@Diest TKO,
Sorry Diest TKO we are not talking about creating children or promoting an increase birth rate we are instead talking about having the children that are born to be raised in the largest numbers possible in stable two parents families.

Second no fertility test is needed as most cars will run and the few that does no run are too small a number to worry about however naming another object a car does not make it a car or allow you to drive it to work. No gay can created a child inside their relationship. Not one gay couple in the history of the human race can do that.

Now tell me given the about facts why we should transfer wealth from single people to hand it over to gay couples!
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:38 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Well put, but I think at this point it's wasted on 9000. He's not interested in investigating his own prejudice on this matter.

T
K
O

I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:39 am
@majikal,
majikal wrote:

Quote:
Everyone is allowed to marry another person of the opposite sex and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. There is no group which is allowed by law to do something which another group is denied.


In the CA Supreme Court case Perez v Sharp...

"...The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the
person of one's choice"


Based on which law? The court is only supposed to interpret law, right, not make it? This interpretation is certainly contrary to the history of law and tradition. I repeat, what law are they quoting or interpreting here?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:43 am
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:
...
Quote:
Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.


Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

I wasn't asserting that the criterion for marriage is the production of offspring. I was asserting that this gives an indication of what is normal and functional sexual attraction.
Diest TKO
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:22 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry Diest TKO we are not talking about creating children or promoting an increase birth rate we are instead talking about having the children that are born to be raised in the largest numbers possible in stable two parents families.

Double talk Bill. If now we aren't talking about birthing children (which you end up talking about in your next paragraph) but instead the ability for a child to be raised in a 2 parent household then you have dug you grave a little deeper considering...

1) Single parent families deserve equal acknowledgment and privileges.
2) Gay couples (as I brought up last time but you ignored) can still raise children.

BillRM wrote:

Second no fertility test is needed as most cars will run and the few that does no run are too small a number to worry about however naming another object a car does not make it a car or allow you to drive it to work. No gay can created a child inside their relationship. Not one gay couple in the history of the human race can do that.

Worst metaphor ever Bill. Sure naming another object a "car" doesn't make it get you to work, but by the same merit, riding a train instead of a car doesn't mean you aren't "community to work." Enough with the lame sophistry Bill.

Your whole "no gay can created a child inside their relationship" rant is irrelevant. Gays can still...

1) Have artificial insemination.
2) Adopt children and raise them (or should be permitted to do so).
3) Raise children they may have had in a heterosexual relationship.
BillRM wrote:

Now tell me given the about facts why we should transfer wealth from single people to hand it over to gay couples!

So are you saying that a married straight couple should pay less in taxes than a gay couple if both families have the same number (or no) children? Wow Bill, You're extreme. You don't just want to discriminate on civil relationships, you want to discriminate on taxation. That's pretty shallow Bill.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:29 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Well put, but I think at this point it's wasted on 9000. He's not interested in investigating his own prejudice on this matter.

T
K
O

I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh.

No 9000, that's not how this is playing out. The truth is that you've wandered into the marketplace of ideas and you cam only to sell and not buy. Your intellectual product sucks so you can't sell it when in competition with other intellectual products that are based on real facts and in this case legal precedence. You are taking no effort to educate yourself on this matter.

You are posting your opinion as fact; you are simply asserting yourself, nothing more. You'd like this to be a debate, but you are arguing your opinion against the facts in this case. Frankly, you opinion is irrelevant. If you'd like to have a debate, bring something of substance.

Duh.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:29 pm
@Brandon9000,
Go read the court case yourself.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  4  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:33 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Shapeless wrote:
...
Quote:
Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.


Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

I wasn't asserting that the criterion for marriage is the production of offspring. I was asserting that this gives an indication of what is normal and functional sexual attraction.

Being that homosexuality takes place in all mammals and for humans has it has existed as long as record history, homosexuality is normal. It is not the majority or the status quo, but it is normal.

"functional sexual attraction?" You're flirting with fascism at this point 9000. Are you claiming that a government should be socially engineering its people's sexual attraction?

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:42 pm
@Diest TKO,
EDIT
Diest TKO wrote:

Sure naming another object a "car" doesn't make it get you to work, but by the same merit, riding a train instead of a car doesn't mean you aren't "commuting to work."


T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:42 pm
@Diest TKO,
Even if homosexuality were unnatural Brandon's argument would be based on the naturalistic fallacy.

His arguments are centered around:

An appeal to nature.

Quote:
Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural.


And an appeal to tradition.

Quote:
Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy,[2] is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:49 pm
@Robert Gentel,
RG - Did you break out the formal fallacy encyclopedia just for me? You must know how much I love that stuff. :-)

You're absolutely right, the "this is how we always done it" is the same argument that the USA has heard to...

segregate schools
prevent blacks from serving in the army
prevent women from voting
etc

T
K
O

Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 12:58 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
RG - Did you break out the formal fallacy encyclopedia just for me? You must know how much I love that stuff. :-)


Nah, logical fallacies have always been a useful way to help others see logically flawed arguments and have been bandied about on a2k since its inception. That fallacy game you started probably didn't take off because we'd done it a bunch of times way back when.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 01:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon wrote: "I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh."

That's your problem, Brandon. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's an ignorant belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain uneducated.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 01:20 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Sorry Diest TKO we are not talking about creating children or promoting an increase birth rate we are instead talking about having the children that are born to be raised in the largest numbers possible in stable two parents families.


My sister who lives in California, and who voted to discriminate against gay couples, was married and divorced three times. She raised three children during the course of her three broken marriages. With 50 to 60 percent of all heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, your self-serving appeal to "stability" is a farse.

Married or not, gay couples in committed relationships are forming families. They raise children in two-parent households. Their families are entitled to the same dignity and respect given to all other families.
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 01:46 pm
@Debra Law,
Yes... as DiestTKO and others have amply pointed out here, most of the arguments against gay marriage are built on appeals to "ideal" conditions that simply don't exist: the absence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom; the absence of state-sanctioned homosexual unions throughout history; the stability of 2-parent households that heterosexual unions fundamentally promote; the fundamental inability of homosexual unions to achieve the same; the sole legal ramification of marriage lying only in matters of financial benefits; etc. The list goes on. As is often the case with such a charged topic as this, ideology trumps observation every time.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2020 at 10:01:58