Court Rules Against California Ban on Gay Marriage
03-18-2005, 02:00 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Court Rules Against California Ban on Gay Marriage
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...alifornia_dc_3
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...ge31405opn.pdf
I know Oaf posted on this already but I wanted everyone to read the Judges thoughts on the matter.
They tackle Oaf's argument but feel free to read it again and again till you see any holes *hint* important social objective... *hint*:
Call me crazy but I think this was poorly written and is way too open for interpretation. Especially the content in the last two paragraphs.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...ge31405opn.pdf
I know Oaf posted on this already but I wanted everyone to read the Judges thoughts on the matter.
They tackle Oaf's argument but feel free to read it again and again till you see any holes *hint* important social objective... *hint*:
The opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the fundamental right to marry as recognized in California should be viewed as a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They assert that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage has never been recognized in California, hence cannot form a basis for an equal protection analysis. In other words, these opponents advocate that the right to marry must be defined in terms of who one can marry. They suggest that to do otherwise will open a door to such improprieties as brothers marrying their sisters of the marriage of an adult to a child.
This argument misses the manner in which the identification of a fundamental human right relates to a strict scrutiny equal protection analysis. The point is not to define a right so as to make it inexorably inviolate from governmental intrusion. Instead, the exercise is to determine whether a fundamental human right exists and then to determine to what extent, if at all, the government can limit it. This process is clearly explained in Perez. Perez identifies the fundamental human right to marriage, then states "there can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means."(Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal 2d at 714.)
...
Thus the state can preclude incestuous marriages as well as establish a minimum age for effective consent to marriage because such limitations on the fundamental right to marry would further an important social objective by reasonable means and do not discriminate based on arbitrary classifications. Thus, the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry.
This argument misses the manner in which the identification of a fundamental human right relates to a strict scrutiny equal protection analysis. The point is not to define a right so as to make it inexorably inviolate from governmental intrusion. Instead, the exercise is to determine whether a fundamental human right exists and then to determine to what extent, if at all, the government can limit it. This process is clearly explained in Perez. Perez identifies the fundamental human right to marriage, then states "there can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means."(Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal 2d at 714.)
...
Thus the state can preclude incestuous marriages as well as establish a minimum age for effective consent to marriage because such limitations on the fundamental right to marry would further an important social objective by reasonable means and do not discriminate based on arbitrary classifications. Thus, the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry.
Last edited by Salty; 03-18-2005 at 02:03 PM.
03-19-2005, 01:26 PM
#2
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
So because they are worried about setting a precedent for incest and underage marriage that means two gay adults are SOL?
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
#3
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by ericdared81
So because they are worried about setting a precedent for incest and underage marriage that means two gay adults are SOL?
The problem is that the important social objective isn’t the just the majority of individuals against gay marriage for whatever reason. It’s mainly referring to any objectives with the constitution.
I am not homophobic in the slightest but I am against the idea of gay marriage. I feel that nothing can be held sacred anymore and I believe we should have a right to preserve that. What ever happened to originality? Just because Johnny got to play with the red four-square ball doesn’t mean you have to absolutely have the same color.
This isn't because of gay marriage but more along the lines of everything else that involves classifications. Be it Religious holidays, ethnicity and so forth. It really wouldn’t surprise me if the domino effect made it to where nobody was recognized as different. Pretty soon everyone will be fitted into this little social package in order to keep everyone’s ***** free from sand and grime.
If two married men can get married under individual judgment or preference then there shouldn’t be any reason why another large, protesting group of people with similar arbitrary classifications couldn’t sully the meaning of marriage even more.
And regardless of what anyone says here it is a preference seeing how the opposite sex is still an option. A gay man could still have a child with a gay woman. On the contrary, one couldn't peel off their black skin and be Oriental. So what if my preference is polygamy with a group of consensual women? We may think that everything is hunky-dory now but it's too open ended regardless of what this judge thinks. There's really no way you can reasonably justify anything along these lines. The only thing that will keep this at bay is the fact there's not enough people to influence change based on whatever preferences they may have.
Last edited by Salty; 03-19-2005 at 03:51 PM.
03-19-2005, 11:34 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
I am not homophobic in the slightest but I am against the idea of gay marriage. I feel that nothing can be held sacred anymore and I believe we should have a right to preserve that. What ever happened to originality? Just because Johnny got to play with the red four-square ball doesn’t mean you have to absolutely have the same color.
Also besides the gay sex, I don't see why you should be worried about their marriage. They actually have a lower divorce rate than hetro-sexual couples, way lower actually. http://health.yahoo.com/health/cente...ationships/920 (For those that don't believe me.) So aren't more hetro-sexual couples fouling up marriages than homo-sexuals?
Just food for thought. Also for those that didn't read the article. Here's my favorite part.
"The higher rate for lesbians is consistent with data showing that women initiate most of the heterosexual divorces in Denmark. (In the United States, women request about two-thirds of divorces.)" Women are evil!!!
03-20-2005, 12:50 AM
#5
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I don't see why you should be worried about their marriage. They actually have a lower divorce rate than hetro-sexual couples, way lower actually.
03-20-2005, 10:07 AM
#6
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Don't have the time to go into the rest of that. But this stuck out to me the most. Your religion states that a married gay couple fouls up a sacred union I take it? What if they don't have the same beliefs as you? Are you not putting your religious beliefs on them? Don't get me wrong, Im Roman Catholic, so I have a idea where your coming from. But I can't use my religion to block others from what they believe in. To me it comes down to this if your church doesn't want to marry them. Then fine. But why shouldn't they be allowed to be married by a religion that does?
Also besides the gay sex, I don't see why you should be worried about their marriage. They actually have a lower divorce rate than hetro-sexual couples, way lower actually. http://health.yahoo.com/health/cente...ationships/920 (For those that don't believe me.) So aren't more hetro-sexual couples fouling up marriages than homo-sexuals?
03-20-2005, 10:12 AM
#7
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
According to that statistic, wich is in another country, it's only been 15 years since they've been allowed to get married. Without more time, the statistic is irrelevant.
Unregistered: Can you please figure out the statistics based on a 15yr time period. I'm curious now.
03-20-2005, 10:38 AM
#8
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I don't see why you should be worried about their marriage. They actually have a lower divorce rate than hetro-sexual couples, way lower actually.
This is the thing that really bothers me.
Wich leads me to my next point, the theory of marriage is that it's the first step to the start of a family,(that's the main reason I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but I do with marriage) wich brings in a whole new debate, gays having children or gay adoption. I don't know about you, but I'm even more against this idea than gay marriage. I happen to be adopted, into a great loving family I might add. Although I really can't say how I would feel if I had two dads or two moms, because I didn't, I really don't see how most children would be comfortable with it. I don't see the point (besides selfishness), into bringing someone into the equation and forcing them to live a alternative lifestyle, who doesn't have a choice.
Last edited by VIBEELEVEN; 03-20-2005 at 01:54 PM.
03-20-2005, 11:34 AM
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
snip...wich brings in a whole new debate, gays having children ar gay adoption. I don't know about you, but I'm even more against this idea than gay marriage. I happen to be adopted, into a great loving family I might add.Although I really can't say how I would feel if I had two dads or two moms, because I didn't I really don't see how most children would be comfortable with it. I don't see the point (besides selfishness), into bringing someone into the equation and forcing them to live a alternative lifestyle, who doesn't have a choice.
03-20-2005, 03:44 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
Fine.
Unregistered: Can you please figure out the statistics based on a 15yr time period. I'm curious now.
Unregistered: Can you please figure out the statistics based on a 15yr time period. I'm curious now.
Umm don't know what your asking there. Might wanna re-phrase that.
03-20-2005, 03:58 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
According to that statistic, wich is in another country, it's only been 15 years since they've been allowed to get married. Without more time, the statistic is irrelevant.
Thats your oppinion but to me its been 15 years and they have a HUGE difference in the divorce rate, not just a minor one. If anything 15 years of marriage and you suddenly think they are going to divorce now? Very unlikly, I doubt the trend will suddenly change. And I don't find that statistic irrelevant at all, I see it as very telling. Come on 17% to 46% thats a HUGE difference. And at what time period do you think most divorces happen by? http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml Thats right after the first five years you are then mostly likely to get divorced. So they have passed that stage and the longer they stay together the lower the divorce rate is. So like I stated this isn't irrelevant.
03-20-2005, 04:01 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
I'm not worried about the marriage at all. Can't someone just be uncomfortable with the idea like me? I think it's mainly based on that for a lot of people which isn’t a bad thing. I’d take a bullet for a couple gay friends I served with in the Army. But when I thought about them having sword fights down Hershey Hwy it made me very uncomfortable. Go ahead and call me ignorant. I have no gripes with homosexuality until it's associated with me. This is why I feel nothing is sacred anymore.
Thats even worse in my humble oppinion. You do not want someone to get married because it makes you uncomfortable? How self-centered is that. A lot of things make me uncomfortable but that does not allow me to tell them to stop doing something if its not hurting anyone. If the only affect gay marriage has in your life is that it makes you uncomfortable then deal.
03-20-2005, 04:10 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
Another thing about this statistic is the fact that many strait couples(in the us anyways)feel pressured into getting married, most of the time because of pregnency out of wedlock, thus raising the divorce rate. With gay couples, you don't have that problem.
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
This is the thing that really bothers me.
Wich leads me to my next point, the theory of marriage is that it's the first step to the start of a family,(that's the main reason I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but I do with marriage) wich brings in a whole new debate, gays having children or gay adoption. I don't know about you, but I'm even more against this idea than gay marriage. I happen to be adopted, into a great loving family I might add. Although I really can't say how I would feel if I had two dads or two moms, because I didn't, I really don't see how most children would be comfortable with it. I don't see the point (besides selfishness), into bringing someone into the equation and forcing them to live a alternative lifestyle, who doesn't have a choice.
Wich leads me to my next point, the theory of marriage is that it's the first step to the start of a family,(that's the main reason I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but I do with marriage) wich brings in a whole new debate, gays having children or gay adoption. I don't know about you, but I'm even more against this idea than gay marriage. I happen to be adopted, into a great loving family I might add. Although I really can't say how I would feel if I had two dads or two moms, because I didn't, I really don't see how most children would be comfortable with it. I don't see the point (besides selfishness), into bringing someone into the equation and forcing them to live a alternative lifestyle, who doesn't have a choice.
I also think you are missing the trend where gays are becoming more accepted in the general population. I think thats fine and I also believe that it will continue. Im pretty sure that by the time im forty this will no longer be a issue. And rightly so. I have a few gay friends, and a couple of them are older than me and are in a commited relationships. Hell their relationships are usually healthier than those of my older straight friends. So what if they help raise a unwanted child? Go watch the Bird Cage.
03-20-2005, 04:22 PM
#14
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
I can't help thinking that if you don't like the idea of a child having two moms or two dads that you would have had a problem with interracial couples having kids when that was still taboo.
03-20-2005, 04:29 PM
#15
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Go watch the Bird Cage.