California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do their need to be limitations on what someone does in their private life? If it doesn't hurt you in anyway, why is there a limitation? This is the part of your argument I can't understand. Why are there these limitations if it takes place between consenting adults?

I'll add I think incest is a bad argument on your part as the main reason it's illegal today is due to the high level of genetic defects it causes in offspring.


And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

[SFL Cat]

If someone is encouraged by a movie or video game to do something terrible then I'd argue that if it wasn't the game/movie, it just would've been something else that eventually pushed them over the edge.

A sense of right and wrong is not something that can just be erased by playing a video game or watching a movie, it requires a lot of external, real-world "help" to get you to that point.

Not saying that it will cause people to something terrible.

I'm just wondering if a steady diet of something like that would change our reaction to a real-life situation...i.e., we see something similar in real-life and our reaction is not shock and revulsion, but more of a blase, shrug-your-shoulders, sh*t happens kind of response. It's all about the slippery slope.

And, if some kid has never thought about robbing, or killing someone...and plays a game like Grand Theft Auto...where the violence is more gritty and realistic...and not over-the-top and cartoony like other games...it certainly opens a whole new range emotions and experiences for that kid. And sometimes all it takes is a nudge or push to cause some people to start going in the wrong direction.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

You're crossing the line here. I should know, since I've crossed it many times before.

You extol the rights of gays and deride gay bashers, yet you have become a religious basher by calling someone's beliefs fairy tales. That's pretty harsh.

The term fairy tale was probably over-the-line. But I am not the one that brought up the issue of religion. He said it's bad in "God's eyes". This argument is used by social conservatives as well.

If you're going to use a particular religion for the basis of a legal argument, then their religion is fair game. If a Scientologist believes psychology should be outlawed based on their religious beliefs, isn't their religious beliefs now part of the argument? If your basis for outlawing something is based on the word of a particular God, I believe it is only fair to argue whether such God exists.

[QuikSand]

Hey, looks like you fellas have this whole thing just about ironed out - just let us know, k thx.

[SFL Cat]

You'll be the first to get a PM, sir.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.

I understand what you're saying, and I personally don't care if a brother and sister want to marry. I'm just saying that one of the arguments is that incestous children are at a much higher rate for fatal defects. There marriage in affect may hurt others in this scenario, while a gay marriage hurts no one.

I agree with you though, just saying that comparing incest to gay marriage seems flawed in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

I agree with you here too. Although I don't feel that these policies are based on saying that one race is better than the other, and instead based on trying to root out racism and helping minorities catch up to the majority race. That has nothing to do with biology or genetics either, it has to do with the fact a particular race was opressed for hundreds of years in this country and need a hand catching up.

[st.cronin]

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

Well, when that "ideology" is, you know, the Constitution, I think you kind have to accept it as true in this debate.

[st.cronin]

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

Constitution doesn't even go that far. We're all equals under the law, regardless of your genitals.

[Drake]

Oh, my genitals are more than equal, and I want that recognized.

[st.cronin]

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

When you're deciding wether something is legal/constitutional (e.g., gay marriage), it pretty much is or, if not, certainly should be.

[JPhillips]

From the Federalist Papers:

"wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I didn't think that this was the first time this law has been reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought this had previously passed judicial scrutiny.

In the bigger picture, the Civil Union in CA provides all of the benefits of marriage that the state can provide. So I don't see that the law is truly discriminatory.

They ducked the question of whether the law was constitutional the last time around. What they ruled on was whether the marriage licenses that had been granted were legal under the law.

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by clintl

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

That's a bad thing if you're on a spaceship with just enough supplies to get to the moon and back.

[Groundhog]

Gambia has a solution:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-23109,00.html

Gambia President Yahya Jammeh threatens to behead gays

ECCENTRIC Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has threatened to behead gays unless they leave the country, according to reports.

"The Gambia is a country of believers ... sinful and immoral practices (such) as homosexuality will not be tolerated in this country," the president told a crowd at a political rally on May 15, local journalists said today.

He went on to say he would "cut off the head" of any gay person caught in The Gambia.

The anti-gay campaign continued in the Gambian pro-government media this week with the Daily Observer publishing a virulent editorial.

"We have said it before and we will say it again. This is a Muslim and Christian country. Both the Koran and the holy Bible condemn homosexuality - pure and simple," the paper wrote on Monday.

British gay rights group Outrage today said the Gambian leader's comments came as no surprise.

"Jammeh has a long history of homophobia," spokesman Peter Tatchell said.
"If he tries to carry out these threats, international aid donors are likely to withdraw their support, and foreign tourists will stay away in droves, thereby damaging the Gambian economy," he added.

The tourism industry is vital to Gambia's economy as the West African nation lacks other natural resources.

Mr Jammeh drew condemnation from African AIDS groups after he claimed in January to have found a "miracle" treatment for HIV/AIDS.

I think "eccentric" is perhaps a little too light a term to throw at a country's leader who has just said he'll decapitate around ~10% of his population.

[SFL Cat]

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

Hey, if the U.S. gets too liberal for you, SFL Cat....

[Tekneek]

I've got the perfect solution for all of this madness. Let's just roll back the clock 50 years and it will be solved. The inevitable slide began when segregation was thrown out, despite a majority of people in the south wanting it to stay that way. The Loving v Virginia decision also needs to be undone. Very similar arguments were used against interracial marriage as the ones used today against gay marriage, so we've got to fix that as well.

Hell, for that matter, let's just go back 150 years so women cannot vote and we can still have slaves. Conservatism will rise again! Tyranny of the majority is a great thing! There shouldn't be any rights that are not subject to the vote of the majority! Let's put everything up for a vote and majority rules! That's DEMOCRACY after all!