San Jose Mercury News: California gay marriage ban struck down, appeals court cites equal rights

[spjunkies]

Hey, I don't care if someone marries a hose :pfft:

lmao good catch

[Kosher Ham]

lmao good catch

I honestly thought you meant a hose.

[mistertim]

I honestly thought you meant a hose.

Is there something wrong with wanting to marry a hose? :paranoid:

[thebluefood]

As long as someone doesn't try to marry a horse who gives a ****? it's amazing that this crap is still going on.

Agreed. I've yet to hear a proper legal excuse for barring homosexuals from getting married.

[twa]

Agreed. I've yet to hear a proper legal excuse for barring homosexuals from getting married.

because they are not qualified under the rules/law in place?(where forbidden)

Because it has not been determined a right in jurisdictions where such rules exist?

it would seem a simple thing to get a SCOTUS ruling.....guess not though

the lack of such seems to leave it up to the legislature to choose

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Yeah bluefood, you haven't heard a legal reason yet because there hasn't be a legal reason yet. It's just because and that's how it is. Duh.

[Kilmer17]

This was the inevitable result, and the expected and hoped for result by both sides.

Now the SCOTUS will take it and decide it once and for all.

Question though, if the SCOTUS overturns the 9th and rules that Prop 8 is Constitutional, will that be the end of the debate?

[IONTOP]

Exactly. It is their/your/our private personal lives that rarely have any effect on day to day life.

NC's trying to "define" it as well right now... :doh:

[Jumbo]

Question though, if the SCOTUS overturns the 9th and rules that Prop 8 is Constitutional, will that be the end of the debate?

No. This is only going to end one way. The same way some other matters of discrimination that were once accepted in our past as legal and allowable conditions of society changed. A potent enough change of cultural values on how the "right" or "wrong" of a matter is viewed will force the change in legal and legislative positions. While having a technical "majority" is not a madnatory qualification for such change (not counting the CA law), numbers do matter. But the power of social forces not always quantifiable in simple body counts also matters, and sometimes it matters a great deal. Sometimes a smaller voice hits on something perceived by enough people and especially in just enough of the "right places" to effect changes over even a resistant majority.

[Larry]

No. This is only going to end one way. The same way some other matters of discrimination that were once accepted in our past as legal and allowable conditions of society changed. A potent enough change of cultural values on how the "right" or "wrong" of a matter is viewed will force the change in legal and legislative positions. While having a technical "majority" is not a madnatory qualification for such change (not counting the CA law), numbers do matter. But the power of social forces not always quantifiable in simple body counts also matters, and sometimes it matters a great deal. Sometimes a smaller voice hits on something perceived by enough people and especially in just enough of the "right places" to effect changes over even a resistant majority.

And on really RARE cases, it even happens PEACEFULLY.

[Kilmer17]

No. This is only going to end one way. The same way some other matters of discrimination that were once accepted in our past as legal and allowable conditions of society changed. A potent enough change of cultural values on how the "right" or "wrong" of a matter is viewed will force the change in legal and legislative positions. While having a technical "majority" is not a madnatory qualification for such change (not counting the CA law), numbers do matter. But the power of social forces not always quantifiable in simple body counts also matters, and sometimes it matters a great deal. Sometimes a smaller voice hits on something perceived by enough people and especially in just enough of the "right places" to effect changes over even a resistant majority.

Discrimination is the key word there.

If the SCOTUS rules that Prop 8 is NOT discriminating, Then what? Or is the SCOTUS and any govt body wrong until they rule the way people on one side of this debate think they should?

[Bang]

Discrimination is the key word there.

If the SCOTUS rules that Prop 8 is NOT discriminating, Then what? Or is the SCOTUS and any govt body wrong until they rule the way people on one side of this debate think they should?

Then they'd have to explain to me how they can deny taxpaying legal citizens the right to pursue happiness.

And iwon't accept their explanation.

Wrong is not made right by legality.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

Then they'd have to explain to me how they can deny taxpaying legal citizens the right to pursue happiness.

And iwon't accept their explanation.

Wrong is not made right by legality.

~Bang

Fair enough. I hear that argument often from the pro life crowd.

[Jumbo]

Discrimination is the key word there.

If the SCOTUS rules that Prop 8 is NOT discriminating, Then what? Or is the SCOTUS and any govt body wrong until they rule the way people on one side of this debate think they should?

I thought someone might want to talk about use of that word.

It's a big word.

But I will let others parse out what a big word it is, and how it's usually context that makes the main differences in its meaning on a given matter.

[twa]

This was the inevitable result, and the expected and hoped for result by both sides.

Now the SCOTUS will take it and decide it once and for all.

Question though, if the SCOTUS overturns the 9th and rules that Prop 8 is Constitutional, will that be the end of the debate?

Still have to go thru the 11th unless Scotus sucks it up early

the debate will never end ,though a ruling the term marriage needs to be replaced .......

is the name used discriminatory enough to matter if the rights are equally accessible seems the issue here.(since they declined to rule there is a SS right to marriage,and instead went the unequal route)

[Jumbo]

Fair enough. I hear that argument often from the pro life crowd.

It's a safe enough generality, no matter who is using it. Context again, I guess, determines matters. Absolutism in arguments will always be a game played on internet message boards and elsewhere, often stupidly and childishly.

[elkabong82]

This was the inevitable result, and the expected and hoped for result by both sides.

Now the SCOTUS will take it and decide it once and for all.

Question though, if the SCOTUS overturns the 9th and rules that Prop 8 is Constitutional, will that be the end of the debate?

Just like when SCOTUS ruled in favor of seperate but equal, no, the matter won't be settled so long as a good number of folks feel that they, or their fellow citizens, are not being treated equally. If the SCOTUS does the wrong thing and rules Prop 8 as Constitutional, I think it will merely serve as an unfortunate roadblock, but eventually the case will go back up the ladder and eventually the right decision will be made, that two willing people, regardless of gender, can marry one another.I hope the SCOTUS makes the right call, but this current group has been making some poor decisions lately IMO.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Discrimination is the key word there.

If the SCOTUS rules that Prop 8 is NOT discriminating, Then what? Or is the SCOTUS and any govt body wrong until they rule the way people on one side of this debate think they should?

At this rate the end game is going to remain unchanged regardless of what the court would rule. Ruling that prop 8 is not discrimination would merely represent a setback for the pro-gay marriage movement that would inevitably be overcome through other legal avenues (depending on the exact nature of the ruling) or the eventual replacement of SCOTUS justices due to death and/or retirement. It would take a pretty damn dramatic event to put the brakes on the whole thing, one that would have to result in a full-on reversal of the current direction of public opinion on the matter.

[Kilmer17]

Sooooooo. Since it is plain to see in this very limited sample of entrenched opinions, the ruling by the 8th is meaningless. As will any ruling by subsequent courts including the SCOTUS to the side who doesnt support the ruling.

USA!!!USA!!!!USA!!!!!

---------- Post added February-7th-2012 at 10:36 PM ----------

At this rate the end game is going to remain unchanged regardless of what the court would rule. Ruling that prop 8 is not discrimination would merely represent a setback for the pro-gay marriage movement that would inevitably be overcome through other legal avenues (depending on the exact nature of the ruling) or the eventual replacement of SCOTUS justices due to death and/or retirement. It would take a pretty damn dramatic event to put the brakes on the whole thing, one that would have to result in a full-on reversal of the current direction of public opinion on the matter.

You think public opinion SUPPORTS gay marriage? The how do you explain the fact that it has failed almost every time it's brought to a vote?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Sooooooo. Since it is plain to see in this very limited sample of entrenched opinions, the ruling by the 8th is meaningless. As will any ruling by subsequent courts including the SCOTUS to the side who doesnt support the ruling.

USA!!!USA!!!!USA!!!!!

People like to think that justice will be served in the end, even if they strongly disagree with each other on what justice entails. This is not new.

You think public opinion SUPPORTS gay marriage? The how do you explain the fact that it has failed almost every time it's brought to a vote?

I'm citing the trend of public opinion, not the current state of it. You can certainly take issue with my projection if you'd like... but I should warn you that I am currently feeling far too lazy to defend it with gusto :pfft:

[Kilmer17]

People like to think that justice will be served in the end, even if they strongly disagree with each other on what justice entails. This is not new.

I'm citing the trend of public opinion, not the current state of it. You can certainly take issue with my projection if you'd like... but I should warn you that I am currently feeling far too lazy to defend it with gusto :pfft:

Got it. I honestly have no idea how it's trending.

Re: justice, again I'll point out that is a reason behind alot of the pro life right.

[Bliz]

Wouldn't want to uphold what people voted for. That would be.....

Tyranny of the majority?

Hate to break it to you guys, but scotus will not take this case. Too narrow. What state other than Cali granted the right then took it away?

[Jumbo]

People like to think that justice will be served in the end, even if they strongly disagree with each other on what justice entails. This is not new.

I'm citing the trend of public opinion, not the current state of it. You can certainly take issue with my projection if you'd like... but I should warn you that I am currently feeling far too lazy to defend it with gusto :pfft:

Here: to repeat myself--

While having a technical "majority" is not a madnatory qualification for such change (not counting the CA law), numbers do matter. But the power of social forces not always quantifiable in simple body counts also matters, and sometimes it matters a great deal. Sometimes a smaller voice hits on something perceived by enough people and especially in just enough of the "right places" to effect changes over even a resistant majority.

Per BK17's USA chant---love it or leave it.

Hell, marry it if you want.

[Kilmer17]

Here: to repeat myself--

Per BK17's USA chant---love it or leave it.

Hell, marry it if you want.

If I do, can it come visit me in the hospital?

[twa]

Tyranny of the majority?

Hate to break it to you guys, but scotus will not take this case. Too narrow. What state other than Cali granted the right then took it away?

I thought the Cali Supremes decided it had always been a right under their constitution,not one granted by law.

I don't think SCOTUS is any more restricted on this than they wish to be.