California's Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

Feb 7, 2012 | Posted by: Politix Staff Ed | Full story: latimesblogs.latimes.com

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

Comments
3,141 - 3,160 of 4,285 Comments Last updated Nov 15, 2012

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3292
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
Can ANYONE tell me why same sex marriage should not be LEGAL WITHOUT ONE word about religion?
Of all the thousands of posts on here by people who are against it, I haven't see one good reason.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3293
Mar 9, 2012
 
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
Can ANYONE tell me why same sex marriage should not be LEGAL WITHOUT ONE word about religion?
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.

HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.

"
The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples.
The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course
the Legislature S359may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act[Pub. L. 104–199, 110 U.S. Stat. 2419])
extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude,however, that there are at least two
grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but
we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to
the welfare of children.
First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

Yes this case is under the NY state constitution, which can only offer greater protection, and never less protection, than the US constitution.

The best part is that you will disagree with this COURT finding two rational reasons not based on religion, so you will ignore it, and then ask the same question again as if it wasn't just answered.
You ignoring the answer is not the same as not being given one.
And the reasons are both rational and legitimate.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3294
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.
HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.
"
The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples.
The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course
the Legislature S359may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act[Pub. L. 104–199, 110 U.S. Stat. 2419])
extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude,however, that there are at least two
grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but
we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to
the welfare of children.
First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships.
It's not an "either/or" situation. Allowing gay marriage won't make straight marriages any less stable. And it's not like only so many couples can marry, not as if each gay marriage prevents a straight marriage.
Reality wrote:
Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
This is really a non issue. You don't have to be able to produce children in order to marry. Sterile straight marriages are allowed. And allowing gay marriage will not change the fact that some couples will breed, and some won't.
Reality wrote:
The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born.
Sex in the restroom on Greyhound a bus can cause a child to be born...
Reality wrote:
It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,long-term commitment to each other.
Allowing gay marriage won't prohibit them from doing that.
From reading this stuff, you'd think people were talking about *replacing* straight marriage with gay marriage.
Reality wrote:
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples.
People marry for all sorts of reasons, not just to breed in a "stable" environment. Considering MOST marriages end in divorce, I don't know if the use of the term "stable" is appropriate.
Reality wrote:
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a father.
Non sequitur. The irony is, that in the state of NY, more restrictions are put on married couples who adopt than on single people.

The court illustrates Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3295
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oooops...
Sex in the restroom on a Greyhound bus can cause a child to be born...
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3296
Mar 9, 2012
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.

so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?

Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.

I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3297
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
I'm sure you will call the good judges "judicial activists" when they rule that children raised in stable same sex households are generally no more or less well adjusted than children raised in traditional households . That day is coming. Brace yourself.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3298
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.
HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.
This case is TOTALLY irrelevant now.....and still DOESN'T apply to ANY OTHER STATE....thanks!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3299
Mar 9, 2012
 
biiguy wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it were the priests specifying it...
There was an age limit on the animals to be sacrificed.. AND, most of the sacrifices were eaten by the ownners, some only by the priests, and others not eaten at all.
What makes you say that? Using the Bible, I have no idea what the priest who wrote that crap actually did with the meat. I'll bet they ran a meat market out the back door.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3300
Mar 9, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is TOTALLY irrelevant now.....and still DOESN'T apply to ANY OTHER STATE....thanks!!!
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.

Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it

AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.

So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
Sgt Common Sense

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3301
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
Both your state Vermont and New York state have marriage equality for same sex couples. How has your own marriage changed?
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3302
Mar 9, 2012
 
Sgt Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Both your state Vermont and New York state have marriage equality for same sex couples. How has your own marriage changed?
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.

So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3303
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
Oh, you poor abused citizen! The horror of it all! Such a life destroying turn of events!

Cheese with your whine?

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3304
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
"Protecting procreators?!" Are you seriously deranged?? Like the 95% of all couples - THE PROCREATORS!- are in danger of losing their ju ju!

Wow. Just, wow...

“No Answers, Only Questions”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3305
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
How would that 'change' your marriage? Would you still love your spouse? Marriage is the union of two people who love each other.
Srel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3306
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
You be honest. This was a ruling on NY constitutional law and it has been abrograted by statute, as well as effectively, if not directly, overruled by the Martinez case.
Any way you slice it, the bigots lost the argument in the end. So cling, if you will, to your now irrelevant NY case.
It gets you nothing.
Srel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3307
Mar 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
CU's are a meaningless distinction to placate the loony bigots. The state can't tell gays to call their unions anything other than marriage of that's what they want to call it.

It does not redefine your marriage or change the legal status of your marriage in any way. It's a horseshit argument. Gay marriage affects no one's rights but the parties to such a marriage.

Your rights are not implicated, you just want to deny them to others, for no legitimate reason.

You keep making the same irrelevant and refuted arguments. Gay people really just scare the hell out of you, don't they?
That is telling in itself.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3308
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Begging the question. Look it up, then come back.
Gay marriage won't harm the traditional family.
Reality wrote:
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
Doesn't matter who came up with them, they aren't rational arguments against gay marriage.
Reality wrote:
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
Again, Rose's Law.

No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, it's a separate issue. Gay couples can marry and not raise kids, or raise kids and not marry. Gay couples can raise kids NOW in NY. A single gay person can adopt a kid, there are fewer restrictions on single people who adopt in NY than on married couples. And that gay person could raise the child with their same sex partner. Gay marriage could actually make it so fewer gay people are able to adopt.

So, again, what's a rational argument against gay marriage?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3309
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Poor dear.
Reality wrote:
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
Oh, boo fkn hoo.
Reality wrote:
<
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
Where did I put my violin?

Still waiting for a rational argument against gay marriage...

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3310
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
No one is responsible for your personal emotions but you. Work on it, my friend.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3311
Mar 9, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
No, and to the best of my knowledge.......there is no protection for couples who procreate whether within marriage or outside of marriage!!!

The legislators in New York decided on the right to grant Marriage Equality to Same-Sex Couples.......in California, the legislators voted and passed 2 different bills and the Governor vetoed those bills......then the CSSC tossed Peop 22 and granted the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.........and Prop 8 solely ELIMINATED that right!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

45 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... 3 min Abdurratln 722
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,082,172
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Rogue Scholar 05 174,922
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min wondering 112,995
Paul Ryan's Plan: Rebooting Compassionate Conse... 5 min Lawrence Wolf 32
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min Brandy Nelson 146,788
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Freespirit8 245,027
•••
•••