Re: California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

by ziggy Sat May 17, 2008 12:12 pm

Including polygamy? Because that is exactly what the next step is going to be if the government refuses to define marriage and allows this to stand. It's only a matter of time. Are you prepared to go there?

Marriage is already defined- by the various state laws, amd which vary significantly. All that's at stake here is how inclusive marriage shall be. This is not the first time that inclusiveness of marriage has been challenged. And it likely will not be the last. You seem to want to avoid future challenges. But that is not what Thursday's Califiornia was about. Is was about same sex marriages- period.

Polygamy would be a different debate for another day. And it's not like we haven't been having the polygamy debate in some fashion or another for more than 100 years already.

Why are you afraid to have further discussion / debate about polygamy?

by ziggy Sat May 17, 2008 12:20 pm

Along with the test of a compelling public interest in implementing public policy, comes a Strict Scrutiny test. Note the bolded italics words in the second paragraph below.
----------------------------

Strict scrutiny is the second most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law (the most exacting standard, "super strict scrutiny," is used to review prior restraints outside of the Near v. Minnesota exception). Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

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

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Do you know how insulting it is to compare an innate characteristic to a chosen perverted activity? People are born Eskimo, Polynesian, Black, White,etc. However, people choose to be homosexual, adulterers, pedophiles, etc. Homosexual is what a person DOES--not what a person IS.

Ah, Keli.

Your logic is flawed from the start.

Just because you think being gay is perverted (based upon your chosen set of religious myths), that does not mean that it is.

You also state it is a learned behavior when you do not know that to be fact. There is evidence that genetics may play a big role in it.

Don't talk to me about insulting when you hit me with a logical fallacy right from the get-go.

We see varying levels of homosexuality and homosexual behavior among all human cultures that I am aware of and in almost all animal species.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 6:31 am

TerryRC wrote:Do you know how insulting it is to compare an innate characteristic to a chosen perverted activity? People are born Eskimo, Polynesian, Black, White,etc. However, people choose to be homosexual, adulterers, pedophiles, etc. Homosexual is what a person DOES--not what a person IS.

Ah, Keli.

Your logic is flawed from the start.

Just because you think being gay is perverted (based upon your chosen set of religious myths), that does not mean that it is.

You also state it is a learned behavior when you do not know that to be fact. There is evidence that genetics may play a big role in it.

Don't talk to me about insulting when you hit me with a logical fallacy right from the get-go.

We see varying levels of homosexuality and homosexual behavior among all human cultures that I am aware of and in almost all animal species.

Hi there, RC! I'm playing devil's advocate here.

There have been studies that show the brains of murderers and rapists are different from the rest of us. Should we have to accept their behavior because they are wired that way?

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 6:51 am

There have been studies that show the brains of murderers and rapists are different from the rest of us. Should we have to accept their behavior because they are wired that way?

Are you implying that gays are a danger to the rest of us?

Being gay doesn't infringe upon anyone's personal freedom.

There is evidence that people that are ultra-devout have different brains from the rest of us. I have to accept their behavior...

Good job as D(evil's) A(dvocate), though.

by **ohio county** Mon May 19, 2008 6:56 am

Who knew this issue had legs?

I think the states should have the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage. Ironically, the voters of California had recently put the issue on the ballot. The voters rejected gay marriage but the California Supremes overturned the plebiscite and, therefore, the will of the voters. That I dislike.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 7:10 am

TerryRC wrote:There have been studies that show the brains of murderers and rapists are different from the rest of us. Should we have to accept their behavior because they are wired that way?

Are you implying that gays are a danger to the rest of us?

Being gay doesn't infringe upon anyone's personal freedom.

There is evidence that people that are ultra-devout have different brains from the rest of us. I have to accept their behavior...

Good job as D(evil's) A(dvocate), though.

No, I most certainly am not.

What I'm saying straight out is that genetics and brain wiring can't be used as an excuse for anything.

My best friend's nephew is gay. His parents died when he was 18 months old and he is more like a son to her and more like a nephew to me. I don't think he has a choice in being who he is, and we all love him just the way he is.

cutsie lil thing you did there with the DA btw. lol

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 7:11 am

I didn't realize that certain personal rights were up the the "tyranny of the majority", Ohio.

If that is the case, I want to start a bill to strip breeding rights from some people, you know, just to improve the species. Surely you have met some people that shouldn't be allowed to breed?

Some things shouldn't get a vote. Your right to marry the person(s) of your choice is one of them.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 7:14 am

ohio county wrote:Who knew this issue had legs?

I think the states should have the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage. Ironically, the voters of California had recently put the issue on the ballot. The voters rejected gay marriage but the California Supremes overturned the plebiscite and, therefore, the will of the voters. That I dislike.

I agree with you 100%. My concern with the individual states is that a state the doesn't allow same sex marriages are going to be pressured to grant divorces, provide spousal benefits etc. That really needs to be addressed in some way.

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 7:25 am

I agree with you 100%. My concern with the individual states is that a state the doesn't allow same sex marriages are going to be pressured to grant divorces, provide spousal benefits etc. That really needs to be addressed in some way.

It already has been.

Look up Article IV of the Constitution, "Full Faith and Credit...".

This one is a no-brainer, in my humble opinion. The states can make law against it, for now, in their own states but they will still have to recognize them from other states

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 7:38 am

No, I don't think so. We'll have to wait and see. The RI courts have ruled they are not going to recognize same sex marriages performed in MA and will not grant a divorce for a marriage they do not recognize. We'll see what SCOTUS says, if anything. I don't think they're going to touch it.

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 8:02 am

No, I don't think so. We'll have to wait and see. The RI courts have ruled they are not going to recognize same sex marriages performed in MA and will not grant a divorce for a marriage they do not recognize. We'll see what SCOTUS says, if anything. I don't think they're going to touch it.

That is ridiculous. That is like MA saying they will no longer recognize RI driver's licenses and pulling over RI drivers and impounding their vehicles.

It is idiocy.

They will be in violation of the COTUS (Art. IV) and the fed will smack their nose for it.

This republic only works because a legal contract in one state is honored in all of them.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 10:35 am

TerryRC wrote:No, I don't think so. We'll have to wait and see. The RI courts have ruled they are not going to recognize same sex marriages performed in MA and will not grant a divorce for a marriage they do not recognize. We'll see what SCOTUS says, if anything. I don't think they're going to touch it.

That is ridiculous. That is like MA saying they will no longer recognize RI driver's licenses and pulling over RI drivers and impounding their vehicles.

It is idiocy.

They will be in violation of the COTUS (Art. IV) and the fed will smack their nose for it.

This republic only works because a legal contract in one state is honored in all of them.

The two have nothing in common. All fifty states license drivers. When that decision was rendered, only one state allowed same sex marriages. In a few weeks it will be two.

Why should RI & the other 48 states have to recognize what in the history of our nation has never been allowed? Because the state of MA say so?

I don't believe SCOTUS is going to touch this because they refuse to reveiw cases involving DOMA. DOMA clearly states that RI does not have to recognize homosexual marriages in other states.

by lindaredtail Mon May 19, 2008 10:45 am

It could be more than two very soon. CBN is raising the alarm over the activities of the Gill Foundation. New York is only a few legislature votes away from gay marriage as well. The issue however which was so big a few years ago has taken a back burner to the war in Iraq and now the economy. In the end how many states will approve it is still unknown. I myself am live and let live on this subject. I understand that it is more opposed to some places than in others.

by **SheikBen** Mon May 19, 2008 10:46 am

I like CBN. I also think CBN would do much better encouraging Christians to stay married (given that the Christian divorce rate is the same or higher than for unbelievers, something that I find scanadlous) than worrying about the states' opinion on same sex marriage.

by **SheikBen** Mon May 19, 2008 10:49 am

Stephanie wrote:
TerryRC wrote:No, I don't think so. We'll have to wait and see. The RI courts have ruled they are not going to recognize same sex marriages performed in MA and will not grant a divorce for a marriage they do not recognize. We'll see what SCOTUS says, if anything. I don't think they're going to touch it.

That is ridiculous. That is like MA saying they will no longer recognize RI driver's licenses and pulling over RI drivers and impounding their vehicles.

It is idiocy.

They will be in violation of the COTUS (Art. IV) and the fed will smack their nose for it.

This republic only works because a legal contract in one state is honored in all of them.

The two have nothing in common. All fifty states license drivers. When that decision was rendered, only one state allowed same sex marriages. In a few weeks it will be two.

Why should RI & the other 48 states have to recognize what in the history of our nation has never been allowed? Because the state of MA say so?

I don't believe SCOTUS is going to touch this because they refuse to reveiw cases involving DOMA. DOMA clearly states that RI does not have to recognize homosexual marriages in other states.

I read Article Four the same way. Although I think states have bigger problems to attend to (as does the church, except in those cases where liberals are trying to coerce them into approving, which is happening and is damnable), I don't see how they should be compelled, given the DOMA (signed by Bill Clinton), in accordance with Article Four, protects their right to ignore the Massachusettes and California's redefinition of marriage.

by TerryRC Mon May 19, 2008 12:27 pm

The two have nothing in common. All fifty states license drivers. When that decision was rendered, only one state allowed same sex marriages. In a few weeks it will be two.

All fifty states give out marriage licenses, also.

The two analogies have everything in common.

Why should RI & the other 48 states have to recognize what in the history of our nation has never been allowed? Because the state of MA say so?

I don't believe SCOTUS is going to touch this because they refuse to reveiw cases involving DOMA. DOMA clearly states that RI does not have to recognize homosexual marriages in other states.

The SCOTUS will be forced to look at DOMA. One of the things that came out of Cali was that DOMA is, itself, unconstitutional.

DOMA is unconstitutional in two ways. It violates Article IV of the COTUS and it violates the equal protection clause.

Trust a republican congress and a democratic president needing a favor out of them to pass such a mewling abortion.

by **SheikBen** Mon May 19, 2008 7:53 pm

Are you familiar with the entire Article IV or just the part that you like?

by Aaron Mon May 19, 2008 9:36 pm

Seems what Stephanie and I were saying has already started happening. Here, in New Mexico a photographer was sued because she refused, or grounds of religious belief, to photograph as same sex ceremony and was sued under New Mexico's sexual discrimination law. I read in today's paper the Elane Photography was fined over $6,000.00 plus they have to pay court cost and attorney's fees.

How bad is it going to get in California for all that deal with the wedding industry?

by **Stephanie** Mon May 19, 2008 11:30 pm

Good luck FORCING the Supreme Court to do anything. You're gonna need it.

by ziggy Tue May 20, 2008 11:00 am

Aaron wrote:Seems what Stephanie and I were saying has already started happening. Here, in New Mexico a photographer was sued because she refused, or grounds of religious belief, to photograph as same sex ceremony and was sued under New Mexico's sexual discrimination law. I read in today's paper the Elane Photography was fined over $6,000.00 plus they have to pay court cost and attorney's fees.

How bad is it going to get in California for all that deal with the wedding industry?

This takes place in New Mexico- so what's your point?

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything- almost anything. I could sue a photographer for refusing to come take pictures at my stag party. I would lose my lawsuit, of course- as will the plaintiffs in the case you cite here.

by **ohio county** Tue May 20, 2008 11:03 am

The suit is over, Zig. The plaintiffs won.

by **Stephanie** Tue May 20, 2008 11:15 am

That is the reason I'm opposed to gay marriage. Citizens shouldn't be compelled to participate in things that run contrary to their belief systems. Do we really give up our civil liberties because we are employed, or because we own a small business?

by ziggy Tue May 20, 2008 11:42 am

The suit is over, Zig. The plaintiffs won.

No. The suit is not over. It hasn't even been heard by any Court yet- only by a state agency whose charge is to the state's Human Rights Act, not to consideration of Constitutional rights.
------------------------------------------

ROSWELL, N.M. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission Wednesday because of its “stunning disregard” for the First Amendment.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/04/09/adf-to-appeal-nm-commission%E2%80%99s-ruling-against-christian-photographer/

by ziggy Tue May 20, 2008 11:47 am

Stephanie wrote:That is the reason I'm opposed to gay marriage. Citizens shouldn't be compelled to participate in things that run contrary to their belief systems. Do we really give up our civil liberties because we are employed, or because we own a small business?

This happened in a state that does not have "gay marriage" anyway.

It was a "committment ceremony"- which any couple could plan and carry out- regardless of marital laws.

by Sponsored content