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

[oisn1]

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

Young people support gay marriage.

Old people don't support gay marriage.

Old people die.

World keeps spinning. Progress.

[Larry]

Young people support gay marriage.

Old people don't support gay marriage.

Old people die.

World keeps spinning. Progress.

Just pointing out, though, the hole in that reasoning.

It assumes that people don't change their minds, as they get older.

(Insert mental image of 55 year old PokerPacker, sitting on an electric scooter, holding a "Keep the government off my Medicare" sign.)

[pjfootballer]

I can't believe this is still an issue anywhere.

It's to the point of absurd.

I don't care who people want to marry and most people that I know don't care either.

It's ridiculous that so much time, energy, money and resources go into fighting this type of stuff.

Agree. Marry who you want and as many as you want, just as long as they are of age. 10 years ago I wouldn't have agreed with same sex marriage, but in that time, I've just view things in that everyone should just be happy. There's too much anger in the world. If it makes people happy, who am I or who are you or who are they to say it isn't right. Just be happy in your life.

And if same sexes married they could carry their spouse on their health insurance, which would solve part of the uninsured/underinsured.

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 04:51 PM ----------

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

lmao good catch

I honestly thought you meant a hose.

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

Someone did marry a building.

[ACW]

Meanwhile, per CNN:

Washington's state Legislature approves a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. It now awaits the governor's signature.

[PokerPacker]

Just pointing out, though, the hole in that reasoning.

It assumes that people don't change their minds, as they get older.

(Insert mental image of 55 year old PokerPacker, sitting on an electric scooter, holding a "Keep the government off my Medicare" sign.)

Hey, now! By then I'll have an electric hover scooter paid for by tax-payer dollars.

[Zguy28]

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia wrote that marriage is a fundamental right. Last full paragraph in the opinion, if you care to read it.

I'll take your word for it. However, the Loving case was operating under the traditional definition of marriage.

Honestly, while I am against it (homosexuality is a sin, plus, let's be honest, as Larry says it's "icky"), I'd rather fight other fights like stopping infanticide.

[Hubbs]

Oh, near as I can tell, the court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, but did not order it removed, pending appeals.. So it's been ruled unconstitutional, but apparently it stays in effect, anyway. (No, I have no idea why.)

Because everybody knows this is going to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts will sometimes delay the execution of their rulings in cases that everybody knows will go to the Supreme Court. I believe it's already been done once or twice with this case.

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 09:10 PM ----------

Honestly, while I am against it (homosexuality is a sin, plus, let's be honest, as Larry says it's "icky")

Wait wait wait. Are you actually defending the notion of banning gay marriage because you consider homosexuality to be "icky"?

[Zguy28]

Because everybody knows this is going to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts will sometimes delay the execution of their rulings in cases that everybody knows will go to the Supreme Court. I believe it's already been done once or twice with this case.

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 09:10 PM ----------

Wait wait wait. Are you actually defending the notion of banning gay marriage because you consider homosexuality to be "icky"?

What do you think?

[Hubbs]

I heard discussion that the decision was written so narrowly that is an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review.

edit: As Bliz pointed out in post #47...

I heard discussion that the decision was written specifically for the purpose of generating Supreme Court interest. That the narrowness was tailored for the Supreme Court to make a "partial" ruling on the larger issue, to perhaps give a hint without ruling same sex marriage to be automatically legal everywhere.

Hey, now! By then I'll have an electric hover scooter paid for by tax-payer dollars.

I'm surprised you're not more offended that he's got you on a scooter at only 55. Can't wait to see you on People of Wal-mart.

What do you think?

I think that I don't remember what your position is, and your other post in this thread seems a bit ambiguous, but that could just be me having a think skull.

But I also think that you only ask that question if there's one particular answer, so good enough.

[LadySkinsFan]

I'll take your word for it. However, the Loving case was operating under the traditional definition of marriage.

Honestly, while I am against it (homosexuality is a sin, plus, let's be honest, as Larry says it's "icky"), I'd rather fight other fights like stopping infanticide.

Which homosexuality is icky? Gay sex? Is lesbian sex icky? Heterosexual sex? If there is a difference in your answers, then you are being hypcritical, because sexual practices can be part of all three. And as far as homosexuality being a sin, I don't believe that although my family and society has tried to tell me that. Sin is a concept that doesn't exist in my belief system.

Infanticide is the death of born children, and I'll agree with you on that. Up until a live birth, it's the woman's body.

[twa]

Infanticide is the death of born children.

Depends on who ya ask (as usual)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001b.htm

people look at things and define things differently(and as Bliz asserted,assign different meanings)

if you can limit the definition of infanticide to born children,then the definition of marriage can also be be limited to a man and woman.

since equal rights are being expanded in definition in this court case,the expansion of the unborn's rights could also become apparent.

how could we have been so blind all these years not to see both rights?

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 09:33 PM ----------

Infanticide is the death of born children.

Depends on who ya ask (as usual)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001b.htm

people look at things and define things differently(and as Bliz asserted,assign different meanings)

if you can limit the definition of infanticide to born children,then the definition of marriage can also be be limited to a man and woman.

since equal rights are being expanded in definition in this court case,the expansion of the unborn's rights could also become apparent.

how could we have been so blind all these years not to see both rights?

The pursuit of Life;),Liberty and Happiness is a ongoing thing

[elkabong82]

I'll take your word for it. However, the Loving case was operating under the traditional definition of marriage.

Honestly, while I am against it (homosexuality is a sin, plus, let's be honest, as Larry says it's "icky"), I'd rather fight other fights like stopping infanticide.

The Bible regulates slavery, but I don't see people still advocating that. Odd how some seem to pick and choose, when in reality the text is man's interpretation at that time and hence is subject to re-interpretation and also is susceptible to flaw. In other words, the Bible can be wrong on some things, like the creation of the universe and the world, evolution, slavery, and homosexuality, for starters. Using religion to judge others seems wrong to me, especially when it's used to say that something someone is born with is wrong. I guess we should go back to forcing left-handed people to write with the other hand, since left-handedness was a sin at one point.

[mjah]

Depends on who ya ask (as usual)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001b.htm

people look at things and define things differently(and as Bliz asserted,assign different meanings)

if you can limit the definition of infanticide to born children,then the definition of marriage can also be be limited to a man and woman.

Except that "The Catholic Encyclopedia" has no ownership of, nor authority to define from a medical or legal standpoint, the term infanticide.

Best to leave the definition of infanticide to the doctors, lawyers, and language experts, who with only minimal exceptions seem to have already weighed in on the topic. Dead issue ( no pun).

Marriage certainly can be limited to a man and woman... by the church. But not by government -- not by any more than it can be limited to white person and white person.

To supposedly equate the scope of infanticide with the scope of marriage is a ridiculous and failed stretch, given that they have nothing in common.

[twa]

Except that "The Catholic Encyclopedia" has no ownership of, nor authority to define from a medical or legal standpoint, the term infanticide.

Best to leave the definition of infanticide to the doctors, lawyers, and language experts, who with only minimal exceptions seem to have already weighed in on the topic. Dead issue ( no pun).

Marriage certainly can be limited to a man and woman... by the church. But not by government -- not by any more than it can be limited to white person and white person.

To supposedly equate the scope of infanticide with the scope of marriage is a ridiculous and failed stretch, given that they have nothing in common.

Marriage can ALSO obviously be limited by the govt....and is

The scope is immaterial IF the definition changes,nor do rights granted depend on numbers;)

The govt can also change the terms of both.

[IHOPSkins]

......Marriage certainly can be limited to a man and woman........not by government.......

How about a Women and a Women.............and a Man?

No limits will make some Mormons/Muslims very happy

[ACW]

I'll take your word for it. However, the Loving case was operating under the traditional definition of marriage.

Honestly, while I am against it (homosexuality is a sin, plus, let's be honest, as Larry says it's "icky")

Well, not much worse than thinking of what your parents did to create you.

And two hot girls ain't icky.

[Larry]

And as far as homosexuality being a sin, I don't believe that although my family and society has tried to tell me that.

Seemed like a good time for this pic, courtesy George Takei:

[ACW]

^^^ :rotflmao:

[mjah]

How about a Women and a Women.............and a Man?

No limits will make some Mormons/Muslims very happy

And certain Christians. And certain agnostics and atheists. And that lady who wants to marry a building. "No limits" certainly would make some folks very happy.

Oh, but just a moment, I've suddenly remembered...

...Let me go look it up to confirm... ...Yes, it appears that I've recalled correctly:

"No limits" is not on the table.

So let's stop pretending that it is, and keep our seats at the grown-up table.

[LadySkinsFan]

Thanks Larry! George Takei is awesome in standing up for our rights.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I heard discussion that the decision was written specifically for the purpose of generating Supreme Court interest. That the narrowness was tailored for the Supreme Court to make a "partial" ruling on the larger issue, to perhaps give a hint without ruling same sex marriage to be automatically legal everywhere.

Is that a serious statement or were you joking? I don't know if the SC is going to take it up, but it sounds like the 9th Cir. did what they could to keep it out of the SC.

[mjah]

Marriage can ALSO obviously be limited by the govt....and is

I gather you missed the part where I mentioned lawyers.

[Kilmer17]

Is that a serious statement or were you joking? I don't know if the SC is going to take it up, but it sounds like the 9th Cir. did what they could to keep it out of the SC.

That should bother us all. If any Circuit court writes an opinion with the thought of what a higher court will do, that's a serious problem.

[ACW]

How about a Women and a Women.............and a Man?

No limits will make some Mormons/Muslims very happy

Well, if it's all CONSENTING ADULTS, sure.

[Bliz]

That should bother us all. If any Circuit court writes an opinion with the thought of what a higher court will do, that's a serious problem.

It's an overstatement by folks explaining the decision. Principles of judicial restraint dictate deciding a case on the narrowest grounds possible, and not using a narrow fact situation (like this one) as a springboard to rule on a broad issue. Which would be "judicial activism" and would be likely to lead to a reversal, at least in part

On the other hand, let's be realistic. Judges don't like being overturned on appeal. So of course that mindset of considering what might happen on appeal always lurks in the background. But I don't think it's a serious problem in most instances.