Explaining Same Sex Marriage

There is no societal harm in recognising the marriages of same sex couples; there is only outrage, panic, fear and a whole load of feelings and hormones; beyond that, nothing.

I would add that not all heterosexuals share these reactions and that younger generations are seeing such reactions for what they are.

I'm convinced this issue will be settled in favour of those seeking same sex marriage rights in the near future. I am irked that the recognition of these people's rights has to be put on hold while we wait.

 

I absolutely agree. and I am a 61year old heterosexual woman, married 40 years to the same man, a mother and grand mother of heterosexual children.

I want to see the day when every person, no matter wether they love aperson of the same or opposite sex, have ALL the same rights inder the law.

 

You are correct in the sense that, if my son is straight I have no choice in the girlfriend he plans to marry.

Similarly if my son is gay I have no choice in the boyfriend he plans to marry.

I might try to influence him toward what I consider a better choice but at the end of the day it's up to him, it's Romeo and Juliet all over again.

But what if that girlfriend or boyfriend happens to be his sister (my daughter) or his brother (my other son)? Does the government have a compelling and necessary reason not to side with them against my wishes and breaking up our existing close family ties?

Is my disliking his girlfriend or boyfriend and thinking they are a bad choice the same thing as not wanting him to marry his sister or brother whom I presumably like a lot?

I can only refer you to my other post:

I've tried to be as consistent and non-hypocritical as possible but for some reason you seem to have missed that one?

 

Not a law student. Who the hell are you? Clearly someone who doesn't understand much about the law.

And how does a case reach the court for judicial review? By way of a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit against a defendant to challenge the law's constitutionality.

No plaintiff, no defendant = no judicial review.

The facts matter. You're certainly welcome to debate Walker's ruling, but if all you have is a bunch of very obviously biased opinion that makes no attempt to actually discuss the merits/failings of that ruling, then I don't frankly see much worth the bother of addressing.

I see no substantive attempt in your post to address why you think Walker erred on the issues of suspect class, his finding that it failed to pass a rational basis test, or his findings of fact. Just a lot of speculation and bald assertion that he was wrong, with nothing to support it.

Hyperbole.

Appealed? No. An appeal is something that happens to challenge an already existing judgment, not the initial passage of a law.

Someone might file a suit, but you have yet to tell us who you think would have standing to do so, or how you think they could convince the court to apply strict scrutiny.

In other words, what I'm seeing from you is an attempt to BS your way through the issues and revealing your ignorance of how the process works in the effort.

If you think it's just blather, then it should be easy for you to refute it by providing a counterargument. Merely calling it blather doesn't suffice.

Yes, equality (pardon my typo).

It was through the will of the People that we adopted a Constitution that places some restraints on their ability to use majority opinion to abuse the rights of their fellow citizens. Just because their will was "legally expressed", that doesn't make it supreme. That role belongs to the Constitution, which stands as a check against their animus until such time as they decide to abolish it.

 

The plaintiff or the defendant is not put under strict scrutiny, the law under review is--technically, the claims of the law and complaint in question. Don't try to act like you didn't say it was the plaintiff or defendant.

You--the fella overly and impatiently focused on semantics--should be careful. If the construction of your sentence is vague, and the direct object of the subject isn't what you meant, then I can understand that it was simply unintentional. (i.e) "a challenger" = subject, "requiring" = verb "strict scrutiny" = direct object

As it is--"a challenger" doesn't receive strict scrutiny, the law being challenged does to make a determination if the complaint qualifies as discriminating against a suspect class..

And, Prop 8 is an example.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/proposition-8-california-supreme-court.html
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF
Good luck...careful what you wish for...

You seriosly don't know what you're talking about--especially with regard to the Prop 8 issue I referenced. It's in the news, and I linked to stories and commentary. Read them.

Prop 8 was voted into law. It was challenged and over-turned. There was an appeal to allow the sponsors to defend the Proposition. IT HAPPENED.

Okay ...if the ignorant want to claim it's other's ignorance while being presented with the facts in evidence....I guess there's nothing to be done.

Yeah...read the news....

 

Don't want to touch it. Don't want to be dragged off topic. Again.

Your goal might be to discriminate against homosexuals, but my understanding is you are advocating a law which uses sex as the criteria for discrimination. Sex is a protected class.

I disagree. *shrug*

 

Strawman or possibly a problem with reading comprehension. Not at all what I said.

No, that would be you. Apparently all you have left is to point out misspellings and what you think is questionable grammer, since you continue to avoid discussing the substance of the issues.

Apparently you missed the comma. "requiring strict scrutiny" is a separate clause. What's more, it wasn't framed in the passive, so it's rather silly for you to read it as something being required of the challenger. All I did was leave off the implied portions: requiring (the court to apply) strict scrutiny (to their case).

I thought that would have been easily understood, but I momentarily forgot I was talking to someone with a serious deficit in understanding with regard to the legal process.

You're trying to distract us with silliness based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote, so I will pose the questions that you have yet to answer once again:

Who would have standing to bring a suit challenging the removal of the gender restriction from the law?

How would they qualify as a suspect class?

If there is no suspect class, then there is no strict scrutiny.

It's not, since the context for all this was your assertion that a new law would have to be written to enact "gay marriage".

None of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand. The standing question is a side issue of the Prop 8 case unrelated to your objections to Walker's finding of fact, his qualification of the plaintiffs as members of a suspect class, or the level of scrutiny he applied. Completely different point of law - matters you still haven't addressed with anything substantial. Apparently you're having trouble keeping track of the conversation.

It wasn't what we were talking about with regard to your ridiculous claim that a new law enacting "gay marriage" would be "appealed" and require strict scrutiny upon judicial review. You seem to be very confused. I suggest you go back and re-read the earlier posts.

Walker's ruling doesn't create a new law. At the moment, it doesn't have any effect at all, having been stayed to allow the defendants time to appeal it to a higher court.

As for that appeal, the 9th Circuit will of course review the facts of the case and decide whether or not Walker was correct to apply the level of scrutiny he did. None of that was ever in dispute. The point being that if the 9th does apply strict scrutiny, it won't be in relation to Walker's ruling, but to the law being challenged - Prop 8's restriction of marriage to "one man, one woman".

And all of this will only happen if the 9th Circuit decides that the proponents have standing. In other words, the California Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on the standing issue.

Oh, the irony.

Review the thread and understand that there were two separate issues under debate:

1) Your assertion that a new law enacting "gay marriage" would be "appealed" and strict scrutiny applied to it upon judicial review.

2) Your complaints about Walker's Prop 8 decision, which were all little more than whining about what you perceive to be his mistakes while failing to provide any substantial backing for that opinion. Because you can't. Because you lack any understanding of the things you're attempting to discuss.

 

Strawman or possibly a problem with reading comprehension. Not at all what I said.

No, that would be you. Apparently all you have left is to point out misspellings and what you think is questionable grammer, since you continue to avoid discussing the substance of the issues.

Apparently you missed the comma. "requiring strict scrutiny" is a separate clause. What's more, it wasn't framed in the passive, so it's rather silly for you to read it as something being required of the challenger. All I did was leave off the implied portions: requiring (the court to apply) strict scrutiny (to their case).

I thought that would have been easily understood, but I momentarily forgot I was talking to someone with a serious deficit in understanding with regard to the legal process.

You're trying to distract us with silliness based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote, so I will pose the questions that you have yet to answer once again:

Who would have standing to bring a suit challenging the removal of the gender restriction from the law?

How would they qualify as a suspect class?

If there is no suspect class, then there is no strict scrutiny.

It's not, since the context for all this was your assertion that a new law would have to be written to enact "gay marriage".

None of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand. The standing question is a side issue of the Prop 8 case unrelated to your objections to Walker's finding of fact, his qualification of the plaintiffs as members of a suspect class, or the level of scrutiny he applied. Completely different point of law - matters you still haven't addressed with anything substantial. Apparently you're having trouble keeping track of the conversation.

It wasn't what we were talking about with regard to your ridiculous claim that a new law enacting "gay marriage" would be "appealed" and require strict scrutiny upon judicial review. You seem to be very confused. I suggest you go back and re-read the earlier posts.

Walker's ruling doesn't create a new law. At the moment, it doesn't have any effect at all, having been stayed to allow the defendants time to appeal it to a higher court.

As for that appeal, the 9th Circuit will of course review the facts of the case and decide whether or not Walker was correct to apply the level of scrutiny he did. None of that was ever in dispute. The point being that if the 9th does apply strict scrutiny, it won't be in relation to Walker's ruling, but to the law being challenged - Prop 8's restriction of marriage to "one man, one woman".

And all of this will only happen if the 9th Circuit decides that the proponents have standing. In other words, the California Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on the standing issue.

Oh, the irony.

Review the thread and understand that there were two separate issues under debate:

1) Your assertion that a new law enacting "gay marriage" would be "appealed" and strict scrutiny applied to it upon judicial review.

2) Your complaints about Walker's Prop 8 decision, which were all little more than whining about what you perceive to be his mistakes while failing to provide any substantial backing for that opinion. Because you can't. Because you lack any understanding of the things you're attempting to discuss.

 

"It's not sex discrimination that you don't get what you want. Jeesh"​

It's not. It's sex discrimination when you discriminate based on sex.

Private citizens can and do discriminate based on sex, race, and religion. One person may choose to discriminate between churches based on their religion, another might choose to discriminate between doctors based on their sex and some folks seem to have even discriminated between presidential candidates based on their race.

Groups of private citizens discriminate too. The Boy Scouts and most church organization practice religious discrimination, sororities practice sexual discrimination and UNCF discriminates between folks based on their race.

That's legal. People have prejudices and preferences, it's sometimes ugly and sometimes simply expected but it's certainly legal.

We hold our laws to a different standard. There's a tradeoff for asking folks of all races, religions, and sexes to pay taxes and be equal members of this nation... the tradeoff is our laws are not allowed to incorporate the same preferences and prejudices many of us may have.

*shrug* I'm betting you already knew all this though. If so, you just took on on yet another tangent.

 

DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC OR DO YOU WANT TO PAINT YOUR NAME IN (*)(*)(*)(*) IN THE SNOW? Seriously? Either you want to play semantics games or you want to talk about the legality of the matter. YOU started the asinine grammar game--I'm willing to talk substance. You misunderstood what I was saying a long while back and then clung to some unclear statement I made as if that fouled every logical position I put forth. Be that way if you want to--I played a bit, but really--are you a grown up or not?

Stop being a dick and talk about the topic. I'm not going to entertain your stupid baiting anymore. I'm through with that after this post, so....either on topic and without baiting, or I'll ignore the bait and only answer substance.

Of course it's my fault...whatever...

Who brought the suit against California's Prop 8? "GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS"

By getting the court to stike down the law!
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination. (see above link).

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

The "new law" was one that explicitely defined marriage in the CA constitution to only diverse sexual relationships. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be in other states (hypothetically) laws banning same sex "marriages." In fact--it appears you are from Michigan. There is law on the books banning "same sex marriages". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(02...px?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-I-25

blathering again... stay on topic. Walker is just one Cali judge considering one case. It MAY result in a nationwide issue that is decided by SCOTUS--and THAT is why it's relevant--but otherwise...it's just more of the political money wasting of taxpayer dollars that surrounds this issue.

It's not me who is confused. Again--in the future, I will delete such tripe and focus on the topic--not your baiting.

You again don't know what you are talking about....DUH. Walker is just a judge who heard arguments against Prop 8...you are accusing me of stating some argument I never made... again--you are confused, and I will delete such nonsensical false charges in the future. It wastes time and effort. I really don't care if YOU PERSONALLY get it--I don't EXPECT such a partisan to objectively consider the facts. It's reasonable non-partisan people to whom my arguments are addressed. There Don't seem to be many on this thread at the moment, but the internet is a big forum.

It's a punt back to the court that tried to dodge it. Why did they try to dodge it if it's a case (as Walker attempted to direct in his ruling) that merits only the "rational scrutiny" test? Probably because the law is a slippery thing, and there are points where things do become a matter of FACT (another thing Walker tried to manipulate in his ruling).

I don't know what weird wiggle this is on your part, but I have never been confused about what is being discussed, nor am I confused at all about what is strict scrutiny and what is a suspect class and all the other legalese that has been bandied about. Again--If your comment is irrelevant or insulting, or mischaracterizes what is at issue...I'm just going to ignore it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you appeared to be reasonably intelligent and sincere. I suppose reasonably intelligent may still apply, but I no longer believe you are sincere. You MUST be purposefully trying to obfuscate. No one above 3rd grade is that thick in the head when sources have been provided.

Fair warning....

 

Prop 8 attempted to implement a gender restriction, not remove one. Your example is going in the wrong direction.

 

What's your point? I don't understand.

 

Same sex marriage is like a bad joke, if you gotta explain it you're already dying on stage.

 

His point is that you have it backwards, read the question again:

"Who would have standing to bring a suit challenging the removal of the gender restriction from the law?"

This indicates that gender restrictions have already been removed and somebody is challenging that prior removal and the somebody that challenged the gender removal in California was ProtectMarriage with proposition 8.

Look, I know I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you but in this instance I'm not being partisan when I tell you you are completely 180o on this.

 

Just to add something here, the case against prop 8 is advancing toward the supreme court. One more step closer to a decision that sets a precedent enshrining gay marriage as legal.

 

You Look. It's right there in the history of the issue in California. It's not like I'm pulling this out of my entrails.

Per Prop 8 in California:
The state never had to define specifically that marriage was between a man and a woman because the meaning of "marriage" was known to be the a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. What happened in Cali is that Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials began issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco, California. By doing that--people of the same sex were supposedly 'legally married" despite the traditional universally understood meaning of the term. Because of that...down the line, after much legal stupidity...Prop 8 was put up to clarify the definition of marriage. This had to be done because a minority of peoples and activist government officials took it upon themselves to re-define the meaning of the institution of marriage. Prop 8 passed and the clarification--arguably unnecessary if there weren't mavrick governmental officials who brought the issue to the fore without going through the proper legislative procedures--was placed into Cali's constitution.

Who had standing to appeal that law? The "gay rights activists" who claimed to be married under the fiasco instituted by Newsom in 2004. This occurred because in May 26, 2009: The state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages.

The same-sex "marriages" that were not overturned by the Cali Supreme Court had "standing" to challenge Prop 8.



Does that answer your question? If not--I still don't understand what your issue is. It's all easily accessible via a few careful web searches.

 

Or... forcing the US Supreme Court to define marriage as it has ALWAYS been understood to be--between a man and a woman.

 

Do you want the names of the plaintiffs? They are Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier


and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami

 

You were asked who would have standing to challenge "the removal of the gender restriction from the law" and you provided an example of folks who challenged the addition of a gender restriction to the law.

My point was removing a gender restriction is very different than adding one. It seems you either didn't understand the question or you didn't know what prop 8 was.

I see.

 

Wrong, wrong and a bit more wrong. It was the California State Supreme Court that ruled that gender restrictions against same sex couples were incompatible with the California State Constitution. Newsom's symbolic marriages were only the precursor which led to that.

The California SSC overturned the ban on same sex marriage in California on May 15th 2008 and the first licenses to same sex couples were issued on June 16th.

Same sex marriage was fully legal in California until prop 8 rescinded the ruling on November 5th. The 18000 couples who married there are still recognised as married as are certain other same sex couples who married in other legal jurisdictions prior to prop 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

"For several weeks in 2004, the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses regardless of applicants' gender. The consolidated lawsuits which resulted eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On May 15, 2008, it overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage with the ruling In re Marriage Cases.[10] The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008"

Again not Newsom, the California SSC.

The Cali SSC did not overturn the marriages, they were the body that ruled to recognise them in the first place. All they did was rule that the procedural enactment of proposition 8 was handled correctly. They made no comment on its substance which was obviously in direct contradiction to their prior ruling.

It's an answer but it ain't a right answer!

 

What? This is silly. The voters of California voted in the definition of marriage into the constitution of California. The state legislature and the voters of California have the right to amend their state constitution--that's who. Seriously--what point are you trying to make?

They didn't "add a restriction"--they amended the state constitution through proper legislative procedure!

I'm pretty sure YOU don't know what Prop 8 did. Here's the whole text of it:

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8

If you read the actual relevant part of the California constitution, you will.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

 

The 9th Circuit didn't dodge anything. They still have to determine whether proponents have standing in federal court. It is likely the 9th Circuit will find that they do have standing to pursue an appeal of Walker's ruling. So then they'll review the case. That's hardly a dodge.

This is the post that started the mess:

As you can see, the Prop 8 case was not the context of this discussion. This was very much about you saying there would have to be a new law to enact "gay marriage" nationwide. Then you go on to make the statement that it can't happen because such a law "cannot meet strict scrutiny".

So I repeat:

The only way to make the determination of whether a new, nationwide law giving same-sex couples marriage rights could "meet strict scrutiny" is for someone to file a lawsuit challenging it. There is no other way for it to end up undergoing judicial review. And that leads to the questions I keep asking that you can't seem to provide a sensible, relevant answer to:

Who would bring the lawsuit challenging the new nationwide law giving same-sex couples marriage rights?

Who would have standing to do so?

How would the challengers of this law convince the court that they represent a suspect class, and that the court should apply strict scrutiny to their case?

The legal portion of this statement is utter nonsense. You seemed to be under the mistaken impression that the new "gay marriage" law giving same-sex couples marriage rights would be automatically "appealed", placing a "burden" on "government" to undertake judicial review of that law, and a further burden upon the court to apply strict scrutiny to such a law. There is no such process, and hence my attempt to enlighten you about the actual process by which such a law would come before the court - through a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff suing a defendant alleging some infringement of their rights by the new, nationwide "gay marriage" law.

Nevermind that the Supreme Court doesn't agree to take every case appealed to it. So much for that "burden".

Don't even get me started on the issue of federal powers vs. state powers that such a law might raise. We're already seeing that play out with regard to Section 3 of DOMA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

 

I said they were the PRECURSOR but it was the California SSC that actually legalised SSM in Cali not Gavin Newsom so thanks for proving me right.

 

We are a Constitutional Republic. States are supposed to make their own laws based upon their own state constitutions that are in accord with the Federal Constitution. The only way to make a same-sex marriage legal nationwide is to have SCOTUS determine that homosexual "orientation" is a suspect class. then the "law" (NOTE THE QUOTES IN THE PORTION OF MY POST YOU QUOTED?) of the land would "extend marriage rights for same-sex couples across the nation." That's the goal of the (*)(*)(*)(*) going on with Prop8--nobody's fooled. I don't think SCOTUS will EVER do that because strict scrutiny will prove that homosexuals do not merit "suspect classification."

My guess is that it will go to SCOTUS, and they won't hear the case--or if the DO hear the case, they will be forced to break the hearts of many gay-marriage activists by definitively telling them there is just reason to discriminate against same-sex marriages on the grounds that marriage is a social institution of man and women for the purpose of procreating and providing for progeny--and that the government has no compelling interest to extend the rights of the institution of marriage to peoples who do not have the possibility to ever meet that purpose.