Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Date Set for Trial on Constitutionality of Prop 8
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 2:33AM #1
Merope
Merope
Posts: 8,214

Things are moving quickly, kiddies, and Senior US District Judge Walker doesn't fool around.  He's set a January 11 date for trial on the constitutionality of California's voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage.  Story here.


This will be the first such trial of its kind in the nation.


Such an early trial date is a tactical victory for the plaintiffs, who are challenging Prop 8.  They're confident that their experts and other witnesses can help make the case at trial that Prop 8 was rooted in anti-gay bias.  The plaintiffs are two same-sex couples represented by Ted Olson and David Boies, best known as the lawyers for George W. Bush and Al Gore, respectively, in the Supreme Court case (Bush v. Gore) that decided the 2000 presidential election.

Prop 8 sponsors OTOH had opposed a trial, saying legal precedents and studies about parents and children can easily demonstrate that voters had reasonable grounds to add a traditional definition of marriage to the state Constitution.  But their lawyer didn't argue against a trial at Wednesday's hearing, saying only that he would try to narrow its scope.


Your thoughts?

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 8:38AM #2
Christianlib
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Fascinating that some people seem to believe that they can make being in love illegal.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 10:19AM #3
rocketjsquirell
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 12,021

While I oppose Prop 8, Prop 8 has nothing to do with "legislating about love". It has everything to do with what contracts the government will choose to enforce. Marriage is nothing more than a contract. It is, however, a contract, which, when entered into comes with certain government legislated rights and responsibilities. The question, therefore, is who is entitled to those government legislated rights and responsibilites. Love has nothing to do with it.


I would favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. This would allow all people to freely enter into civil commitment contracts with people of their own choosing and would allow all couples to assume the same rights and responsiblities.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 11:37AM #4
Agnosticspirit
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,253

Aug 20, 2009 -- 10:19AM, rocketjsquirell wrote:



I would favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. This would allow all people to freely enter into civil commitment contracts with people of their own choosing and would allow all couples to assume the same rights and responsiblities.



I completely concur, rocketsquirrel.... Were government out of the business of recognizing marriage, no one would be permitted to dictate who has the right to marry based upon the sexual preference of those who would be joined in wedded bliss.


Government should limit its role to a clerical one only by issuing the license, etc. to ensure married couples obtain their legal rights, protections and responsibilities. This proposition was an appalling example of the venal majority subjecting their "religious sensibilities" upon a minority.  Mob rule in action. Not pretty.

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 1:34PM #5
Svetlana
Svetlana
Posts: 10,759

Aug 20, 2009 -- 11:37AM, Agnosticspirit wrote:


Aug 20, 2009 -- 10:19AM, rocketjsquirell wrote:



I would favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. This would allow all people to freely enter into civil commitment contracts with people of their own choosing and would allow all couples to assume the same rights and responsiblities.



I completely concur, rocketsquirrel.... Were government out of the business of recognizing marriage, no one would be permitted to dictate who has the right to marry based upon the sexual preference of those who would be joined in wedded bliss.


Government should limit its role to a clerical one only by issuing the license, etc. to ensure married couples obtain their legal rights, protections and responsibilities. This proposition was an appalling example of the venal majority subjecting their "religious sensibilities" upon a minority.  Mob rule in action. Not pretty.



The government (each state, in our case) is responsible for the division of marital property when a marriage ends (whether by death or divorce).  Since it has that responsibility, it enacts laws to define the bases on which that division will occur, and that could not be more reasonable.  There are other laws here and there, in different states, regarding the age of consent to marriage and the degree of consanguinity, for example, and those are fairly reasonable, too.  BUT, given those laws, any marriage between two people of legal age and not too closely related by blood to one another should be legal in each state by default.

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I was gonna post something that would tell you the difference between Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims but I realized that you don't need to know anything about somebody's religion to know that you shouldn't shoot them."  ~ Eric Parsons
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2009 - 9:46PM #6
mountain_man
mountain_man
Posts: 34,189

Aug 20, 2009 -- 8:38AM, Christianlib wrote:

Fascinating that some people seem to believe that they can make being in love illegal.



The fascinating part is that they come from a religion that preaches love. They claim their god is love. Their main character preached love.


 


Where's the love?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2009 - 11:41AM #7
IDBC
IDBC
Posts: 4,088

IDBC
Posts: 1696

Howdy Everybody








I am a....romantic. I disagree with the claim that a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.  Now I make a distinction between a "civil union" and  a "marriage". 








A civil union is the legal equivlent to a contract but is not neccesarily a religious ceremony.








A marriage is a civil union AND is  neccesarily a relgious ceremony. 








It is my understanding that under the "free exercise" clause of the Constitution the state is forbidden to prevent the "free exercise" of religion.   It also means that one church-synogouge-mosque-sect cannot dictate to another one we regards to religious rituals. 








 








Now everybody knows(Wink) that  it the censored censored censored reactionary fundamentalist conservative  intolerent jew-christians-muslims who oppose same sex marriage and civil unions. 








Now I know that there are some highly intelligent geneticaly diverse enlightened liberal porgressive tolerant jews and christians who have no problem with having a religious ceremony unititing two people of the same sex.   Hell some of them even "allow"  them to be clergy! Laughing








I do not know of any highly intelligent geneticaly diverse enlightened liberal porgressive tolerant Muslims who would "allow" two people of the same sex to have a religious  ceremony in their mosques.  I doubt very, very, very, very much if any mosque has a gay iman.   The only imans "allowed" are hetorsexual MALES.  








Now it doesn't seem fair to me that one group can dictate to the other group how to run their religious rituals and ceremonies. 








If the the , reactionary, fundamentalist, conservative,  intolerent jew-christians don't want such a religious ceremony in their church or synagouge the are perfectly justifed in banning it.  The non-interference should work between different religions and the various sects within the religion and the state should be completely out of it. 








However I do have a problem.  If the state is to stay completely out of the "marriage" or "civil union" bussiness and allow adults complete freedom to enter into legal contracts does this mean that:








a.  First Cousins can marry or form civil unions-contracts  if they are both adults








b.  Sister and  Brother marry  or form civil unions-contracts  if the are both adults








c.  Father and Daughter marry or form civil unions-contracts   if they are both adults








d. Mother and Son marry or form civil unions-contracts   if they are both adults








e.  Father and Son marry or form civil unions-contracts   if they are both adults








f. Mother and daughter or form civil unions-contracts   marry if the are both adults








Now I will concede that some, or perhaps all these are somewhat unlikely or absurd, but have you ever watched Jerry Springer ?  Embarassed(que mad cackling).








How about a man having more than one wife it all adults concerned freely enter into such a contract?








Ditto for the ladies of course.








Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile
HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2009 - 1:14AM #8
Stardove
Stardove
Posts: 12,807

Face it states are not going out of the marriage business.  Money to be made off the licenses.


There are laws I would think in all state that do not allow close blood relatives to marry.  They are already on the books.


So do not worry about all those you listed ......will.........be allowed to marry?


Silly argument.  Make you sound like a Fundy.  Are you?


 


PS.  Jerry's staff hired people to play those parts.  I met a transgendered person while waiting for a friend to seen at the county ER on night.  It can be an all night affair at the ER.  She for some reason decided to start talking to us and said she had been on Springer's show....hired and told the plot.  The friend I had taken to the hospital was a gay female, maybe she picked up on that and thought we were a couple.

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

Nothing but your own thoughts can hamper your progress.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2009 - 1:00PM #9
Larosser
Larosser
Posts: 410

Aug 20, 2009 -- 2:33AM, Merope wrote:


Your thoughts?





I think this is a very important trial, for more than just the gay community. What's really at stake is the right of any minority (including republicans, catholics, school teachers, and redheads) to have their basic rights protected from the whim of the majority.


There are supposed to be limits, defined in the infrastructure of the legal system, as to what sorts of laws can be passed by the people or the legislature. Laws that contradict the basic premise of the system of laws cannot and should not be allowed. The question before the court, in my opinion, actually  is: "Does the infrastructure of California's law and government require that all citizens of California be granted equal rights, except in specific instances relating to incompetence or criminal activity?"


We shall see what the court thinks.



La
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2009 - 6:54PM #10
Christianlib
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Put more bluntly, If YOU can enslave any man, there will soon appear a man who can enslave YOU.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook