Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Marriage? A privilege?!

When the real left comes to power, rather than these watered-down boat-rockers, the institution won't exist so it is a privilege brought by the Church.

Those making a mess of the privilege don't alter anything. And it's perfectly voluntary.

Judge Walker inadvertently answered your question yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55367172.pdf

On your first point: "The state cannot discriminate based on the gender of your intended spouse."

According to Judge Walker, Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.

On your second point, "He" is right - "Gender ... is subject to intermediate scrutiny." Still, there must be a rational basis for denying a fundamental right (which is what marriage is) on the basis of gender.

Nonetheless, Judge Walker said: "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."

If marriage is about children, should barren couples be denied the right to marry? Or elderly couples?

Touche!

How does one judge reverse a democratic vote?

By declaring it unconstitutional and based on bigotry.

Anybody can do that. It can be argued that the Constitution is unconstitutional and based on bigotry.

But how does one judge set aside a democratic vote? It surely means, even at the simplest level, that the cost of Prop 8 was a waste. The judge could have answered as quick as you just did.

Except when you make the argument it's based on ignorance.

The constitution can't be unconstitutional since anything in the constitution is the constitution. The constitution can't be unconstitutional anymore than drinking at the pub means you aren't drinking at the pub.

The judge wrote almost 100 pages about why it was unconstitutional.

Cycloptichorn

What the graph failed to say is that "gay marriage will be the end of the world." LOL

You are not answering the question. How can a judge overturn a free vote? The judge might have homosexual sympathies. Or just wanted to make Breaking News. Or enjoys putting the cat among the pigeons.

I'm asking for an explanation of how one judge can set aside the result of a democratic vote. Could he set aside the minimum wage? Or the prohibition of drugs? Or the election of the Govenor?

What's the sense in any Proposition if a judge can cancel the result.

Couldn't another judge write a 1,000 pages about why it was constitutional?

spendi, It's the law of the land that "all men are created equal." No vote can discriminate against any group who seeks the same legal rights as everybody else.

Of course a judge can overturn a "free vote," whatever that means. The US Constitution is a document against which other laws, opinion polls, proposed legislation are tested. This judge found the CA state law wanting in Constitutional adherence.

To say that the "judge might have homosexual sympathies" makes you look
petty. Is it any skin off your nose if gays are to marry?

re spendius, as has been said many times, "You don't vote on rights". A right is a right. Since the CA vote infringed a right, it was invalid. The MA Supreme Judicial Court some five years ago found that gay marriage was a protected right under the MA Constitution and decreed that it be allowed in the state. It has been. A poll taken shortly after the decision showed state approval for gay marriage in the mid-60% range. The state politicians who loudly opposed it were voted out of office in the next election--which quieted the politicians opposed remarkably quickly. The die-hard attempts to get a ballot question on have failed repeatedly. Gay marriage works. It doesn't have the dire consequences the screamers predicted. It's not a problem--now we just care about the important stuff, like whether the Red Sox will beat the Yankees. Besides, the gay couple who live on the next block have the biggest TV screen in the area and they invite the neighborhood in to watch the games.

Well- is not the right of heterosexual couples, who have gone through legally binding "joining" ceremonies, to have the legal category "married" applied exclusively to them, a valid right.

I am not objecting to homosexuals living together. I am objecting to them demanding that the word "marriage" be applied to their condition. They have already altered the language significantly.

A character in 1984 , Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

There is a whole constellation of words, phrases and jests surrounding the word "marriage". A whole history of conventions and manners and procedures. "Giving away the bride" for example. "Bridesmaids". "Honeymoons". "Plighting one's troth". "Ball and chain". "Twas there they tied a lover's knot, the red rose and the briar." "Shotgun wedding".

Why can't they be "unijoyed" or "welderfulled"

You're into destruction of culture. Wilfully. Methinks that's your only objective. Being awkward for the sake of it.

Which one of you on being told by a bloke that he's married would think to ask the gender of his wife. Which one is the wife and which the husband in a homosexual marriage? So the language loses "wife" and "husband" now. We are "partners" as if it's business. Then "husbandry" loses half its meaning. "Man" and "woman" are dissolving into "person".

You're all off your ******* heads. 30 years of that shite and Shakespeare becomes meaningless. Where does "courtship" go? What becomes chaste timidity in young ladies? What becomes a way of life? I'm beginning to see The Waste Land dawning.

But there is solace. You are few and have an axe to grind.

The concept of a democratic state is set aside in deference to judges.

spendi, You'll never understand what "equal rights" means if your life depended on it. "Marriage" is just a word; why are you so determined to limit the use of this word? It doesn't affect you in any way, and yet you wish to impose your definition on others you don't even know or care about. Your world is too small a cloister.

They wouldn't set aside my principles as cheaply as that. I assume the invitations are in the service of validating them. But you haven't said whether they are "married". That word is the topic. You're shifting the goal posts. The topic isn't "Homosexual Couples--Legal Question."

Your so-called principles belong in the stone age - or two thousand years ago when christianity was created by man.