California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

Well, we could work to change the laws regarding private employers and discrimination. IMHO that would be the thing to do, however that isn't likely to occur in my lifetime. I try to be realistic about things.

That is precisely the reason I am opposed to gay marriage. You hit the nail on the head. Private citizens who refuse to provide products and services for gay weddings because they object to homosexuality for religious or moral reasons will be sued. This should not occur.

So we should just ditch the civil rights act?

Some mormons think blacks are "sub-human", based upon some things in the Book of Mormon. Should businesses, perhaps whole towns, be able to refuse service to blacks or chinese or amerindians because of their whack-job religious beliefs?

Sorry. If you can't behave, I have no problem beating you until you do. If you aren't going to serve everyone that comes to your door and plays by the rules, find another line of work.

West Virginia narrowly defeated a similar law this year. The supporters promise to bring it back next year. Sooner or later it will pass and sexual orientation will be given the same credeance as skin color.

And you don't think it should?

Should we take skin color off the "protected" list, also? Like I said, some mormons discriminate against blacks based upon religious reasons. Shouldn't we just let them?

Yes, I think the law should be defeated.

Stephanie wrote:

It is legal to deny someone service if they are breaking a law or posted rule. It is not legal to deny someone service on any other basis.

That is precisely the reason I am opposed to gay marriage. You hit the nail on the head. Private citizens who refuse to provide products and services for gay weddings because they object to homosexuality for religious or moral reasons will be sued. This should not occur.

Then what you are affaid of isn't "gay marriage"- but whether society allows or dis-allows discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If a state allows discrimination based on sexual orientation, "gay marriage" does not change that. If a state disallows discrimination based on sexual orienmtation, "gay marriage" does not change that either. That is a red herring.

Yes, I think the law should be defeated.

Then we can run those coloreds out of town.

We can get together, us whites, and refuse to sell them groceries, gas, clothing. We will refuse to give them loans at the bank or work on their cars.

Soon enough, they will have to leave...

No, the law doesn't need to be changed.

What does a law classifying homosexuals as a protected class have to do with black people Terry?

This is the type of demagoguery that will be used to get the bill passed.

Ziggy,

You can call it whatever you like. I have conducted my life, and continue to conduct my life, in a manner that backs up what I say here. I don't care what consenting adults do with each other. It is none of my business who you choose to live with, nor is it any of the government's business who you choose to live with. It isn't any of the government's business who private individuals and privately owned, operated, and financed businesses are willing to service or provide for etc.

Yes, I am in favor of repealing all laws that allow for litigation against privately owned companies and private citizens who discriminate against others by refusing to service or provide for any group for any reason. I'm talking age, gender, race, religion, sexual preference, weight, hair color/length/style, and the myriad of other things people find objectionable to them for their own little reasons.

Until that occurs, I am unwilling to support anything likely to give another little segment of our population an excuse to sue private individuals and companies. This is a clear violation of our personal liberties, and it is a burden on our court system and the cost of just far too high.

Stephanie wrote:

Until that occurs, I am unwilling to support anything likely to give another little segment of our population an excuse to sue private individuals and companies. This is a clear violation of our personal liberties, and it is a burden on our court system and the cost of just far too high.

And what about the violation of the personal liberties of homosexuals who are denied the legal advantages of marriage? Is their liberty inferior to that of some might be maybe some day be sued photographer who might not want to take pictures of just any wedding?

The denial to homosexuals of the legal marital benefits you and I enjoy is an immediate denial of the privilege, some would say right, of legal marriage- a real and immediate denial. The civil case against the hypothetical photographer you and Aaron are worried about is, at best, a theoretical future event- separate and apart from the "right" of some to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.

It's not going to take gay marriage to make homosexuals a protected class of people. Anti-discrimination will do that for them and it's not when, it's already happening. It is fact.

And you've conveniently avoided a couple of points. One being that if the government can't define marriage, they can't prevent polygamy which creates a whole host of social problems which I've previously listed.

And the second is that Baker v. Nelson has set precedence so the California decision will be overturned by the 9th, no matter how they feel. They have to.

The ONLY way same sex marriage will be allowed is if the defendants in the California case pursue the case to the Supreme Court AFTER the 9th overturns the decision, AND the Roberts led court is willing to hear the case. That's not likely.

That is all fact. Well, all but the last 3 words. That is my opinion. Do you think a Roberts led court will hear a same sex marriage case and overturn Baker v. Nelson?

Aaron wrote:Do you think a Roberts led court will hear a same sex marriage case and overturn Baker v. Nelson?

Dred Scott v. Sanford was eventually overturned.

And so was Plessy v. Ferguson.

And I've no doubt Baker v. Nelson will be as well and same sex marriage will be legal.

Just not with this current court under John Roberts.

So tell me, when it is overturned, what happens when polygamist want the same rights as same sex couples because the government refuses to define marriage and the 14th amendment gurantees them the same rights as everyone else Frank?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Until that occurs, I am unwilling to support anything likely to give another little segment of our population an excuse to sue private individuals and companies. This is a clear violation of our personal liberties, and it is a burden on our court system and the cost of just far too high.

And what about the violation of the personal liberties of homosexuals who are denied the legal advantages of marriage? Is their liberty inferior to that of some might be maybe some day be sued photographer who might not want to take pictures of just any wedding?

The denial to homosexuals of the legal marital benefits you and I enjoy is an immediate denial of the privilege, some would say right, of legal marriage- a real and immediate denial. The civil case against the hypothetical photographer you and Aaron are worried about is, at best, a theoretical future event- separate and apart from the "right" of some to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.

The rights afforded to legally married couples are available to homosexual couples through other legal channels. This isn't an either/or situtation. They can obtain living wills, durable power of attorney, etc. What I'm concerned about isn't hypothetical, Aaron proved that for us.

When the courts are clogged with frivilous lawsuits due to civil rights violations, that harms all Americans. It costs all taxpayers real money. I'm saying, it is better to inconvenience a minority of the population than to further burden the entire nation with more government intrusion.

Aaron wrote:So tell me, when it is overturned, what happens when polygamist want the same rights as same sex couples because the government refuses to define marriage and the 14th amendment gurantees them the same rights as everyone else Frank?

The Courts would hear the arguments, and including any state arguments about any compelling public interests in denying polygamous marriages, and rule accordingly.

Do you have a problem with that?

Stephanie wrote:When the courts are clogged with frivilous lawsuits due to civil rights violations, that harms all Americans. It costs all taxpayers real money. I'm saying, it is better to inconvenience a minority of the population than to further burden the entire nation with more government intrusion.

Yes, heaven forbid that the Courts should ever be used to challenge violations of people's civil rights. Let's let the bigots run the world, and to hell with the rights of the people to live as equals among equals.

Oh bull!

You have the right not to have dealings with anyone you find offensive, or objectionable, or even just because you don't like the color of their nail polish. Or, you can refuse to associate with me because I'm a stubborn, conservative Yankee of Italian/Polish/Heinz 57 woman who homeschools her son.

The government, on the other hand, cannot. The government also can't make you a better person. They can't force you to befriend me, and they can't force you to be more tolerant and accepting.

The government can't segregate homosexuals from the rest of the population via the school system. They can't deny them social security benefits, or food stamps, or Medicare. They also can't force you to participate in their wedding if you object to their marriage for any reason. Those things would be a violation of an individual's civil rights.

Stephanie wrote:
The rights afforded to legally married couples are available to homosexual couples through other legal channels. This isn't an either/or situtation. They can obtain living wills, durable power of attorney, etc. What I'm concerned about isn't hypothetical, Aaron proved that for us.

The case Aaron cited was not about marriage- gay marriage or otherwise. It was about a "committment ceremony". And the case Aaron cited could have just as easily resulted from a ceremony celebration related to the "other legal channels" you reference.

Again, your problem is not about gay marriage. It is about civil rights laws. And several kiinds of civil rights laws have been with us for decades- and have been tested in the Courts for decades- and will be tested in the Courts for years, maybe decades to come. So what's your point?

If all you have against marriage between same gendered couples is that you are afraid that it might result in some new Court case some time, then you don't have very much at all. You can be assured that there will be more Court challenges to anti-gay marriage practices, until they are litigated away, than against some photographer somewhere who refuses to take some photographs. So one way to un-clog the Courts would be to allow gay marriage.

If your opposition is because of what you say it is, then a more honest use of your energies would be in opposition to anti-discrimination laws instead of against marital inclusiveness efforts.

Stephanie wrote:The government can't segregate homosexuals from the rest of the population via the school system. They can't deny them social security benefits, or food stamps, or Medicare. They also can't force you to participate in their wedding if you object to their marriage for any reason. Those things would be a violation of an individual's civil rights.

OK. I am not arguing that the government can do or can force anyone else to do any of those things.

So then why deny two people who want to be married the privilege of doing so and being so? The bigotry of some people is not a reason, nor even a good excuse, for denying other people the same legal rights you and I enjoy.

Stephanie wrote:The rights afforded to legally married couples are available to homosexual couples through other legal channels. This isn't an either/or situtation. They can obtain living wills, durable power of attorney, etc.

Then why do you and hubby chose to be legally married instead of just obtaining living wills, durable power of attorney, etc.

Ziggy,

I've read all of your posts, and I've come to the conclusion that you think I'm actively fighting gay marriage. This simply isn't true.

I don't support gay marriage for the reasons I've cited. I don't favor hate crime laws, and you're correct, my big gripe is with civil rights laws. I believe the government cannot discriminate. If the US government discriminates what separates us from the goverment of Hussein, Hitler, or Sharon?

However, it is my firm belief that just as the government must not discriminate, it must protect the rights of individuals to discriminate, regardless what their reasons for doing so. I say that because where do we draw the line? Is it ok for Terry to refuse to marry a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs? If so, then do people of faith have "extra" liberties I don't because I have no faith? The law says abortion on demand is legal. Should I be forced to fraternize with abortionists? To me abortion is murder, although that isn't based on any religious teaching.

I bake for extra cash. Should I be required to bake pies, cakes and cookies for Planned Parenthood's Christmas party? Should my husband who occasionally takes catering jobs on the side be forced to cater such an event?

In the end I really couldn't care less about gay marriage. I believe our homosexual citizens have all kinds of avenues available to them if they want to leave their partners their valuables upon their death. They can take steps to make sure if they are incapcitated their partner gets to make medical decisions. If they are eventually allowed to marry, I'm ok with that too. No skin off my nose.

However, until the time comes where Dan & Stan can't sue Rev. Terry because he won't perform their ceremony, and they can't sue my father for refusing to sing at their reception, they aren't getting my support either.

We have far more important issues in this country we need to deal with. I can't believe our leaders waste their time arguing over this. Which is precisely why I won't be voting for the CP's candidate for President. I went to his website and half his writings and speeches are in opposition to gay marriage. Obviously, that's his top priority. It sure as hell isn't mine.

Stephanie wrote:However, it is my firm belief that just as the government must not discriminate, it must protect the rights of individuals to discriminate, regardless what their reasons for doing so. I say that because where do we draw the line?

I don't think that we should "draw the line" as relates to marital rights, or any other equal treatment rights, based on who might get sued.

Is it ok for Terry to refuse to marry a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs?

I think it is OK. Terry can refuse to marry any couple, for any reason- or for no reason at all. And allowing gay marriage would not change that.

If so, then do people of faith have "extra" liberties I don't because I have no faith?

I am not sure. But whether they do or don't, it is not because gay marriage is either allowed or disallowed.

The law says abortion on demand is legal. Should I be forced to fraternize with abortionists?

No. But again, that had nothing to do with whether gay marriage is either allowed or disallowed.

In the end I really couldn't care less about gay marriage. I believe our homosexual citizens have all kinds of avenues available to them if they want to leave their partners their valuables upon their death. They can take steps to make sure if they are incapcitated their partner gets to make medical decisions.

And so can hetereosexual couples. So why do they usually chose to be married? Why do you chose to be married?

If they are eventually allowed to marry, I'm ok with that too.

I agree. Then what are we arguing about?

However, until the time comes where Dan & Stan can't sue Rev. Terry because he won't perform their ceremony, and they can't sue my father for refusing to sing at their reception, they aren't getting my support either.

Anyone can sue anyone now. A homosexual couple could sue Terry or your father for refusing to musically bless their "committment ceremony', or for refusing to sing or offer prayer at their "coming out party". They would lose, but they could sue him. And allowing gay marriage won't change that.

We have far more important issues in this country we need to deal with. I can't believe our leaders waste their time arguing over this.

So what should the "leaders" do or tell citizens who present issues of equal treatment under the law. Should they just ignore them, or tell them to go to hell, or to go pee up a rope, or what?

Yes, telling them to pee up a rope, and then moving on, would be preferable to this. This nation and her people are in trouble. I realize if you're a gay person and want to get married for whatever reason, this must be some type of high priority for you. However, most people in this country are not gay.

However, most people in this country do have to by petroleum products, eat, pay taxes, and we all suffer the consequences of outright stupid foreign policy decisions. We all pay to incarcerate people because our laws punish addicts. These should be top priorities for our leaders. These sorts of issues impact us all, no matter what our sexual preference is, and no matter what color or religion we are. Those issues need to be given the priority and attention before it's too late.

PS......My husband and I got married because we were building a family together. If we weren't having children together, I wouldn't have done it again. That's the truth.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So tell me, when it is overturned, what happens when polygamist want the same rights as same sex couples because the government refuses to define marriage and the 14th amendment gurantees them the same rights as everyone else Frank?

The Courts would hear the arguments, and including any state arguments about any compelling public interests in denying polygamous marriages, and rule accordingly.

Do you have a problem with that?

And what are those arguments going to be? You've said yourself that government cannot define marriage or have separate rightst based on the 14th amendment. If they can't define it for same sex marriage, how can they define it for polygamist?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Do you think a Roberts led court will hear a same sex marriage case and overturn Baker v. Nelson?

Dred Scott v. Sanford was eventually overturned.

And so was Plessy v. Ferguson.

To equate those to gay marriage, surely you see then that single people are today's Dred Scott?