Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Equality under the law for gays has belatedly become normal, not abnormal. To be honest I didn't think it would happen this quickly.

---

I think "equality" in the US has been in slow-motion, and male-dominated far too long. While it's refreshing to see homosexuals come out of the closet, and demand their civil rights....it's somewhat frustrating that women were fighting this battle long before any man did.

Hey, women still don't have pay equity, or equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Does this really mean that only men can advance women's causes, because men own the political processes, and most of the money?

Yes they do under the law. Name one law that segregates women as a lesser caste than men like banning them to marry :rolleyes:

Whether they do in practice is completely different for a myriad of reasons. Not least because women vary dramatically, unsurprisingly for ~51% of the population and are not one homogenous group. I am sure there are plenty of women in the US with the same experience and qualifications as men, doing the exact same job, for the exact same pay rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes they do under the law. Name one law that segregates women as a lesser caste than men like banning them to marry :rolleyes:

Whether they do in practice is completely different for a myriad of reasons. Not least because women vary dramatically, unsurprisingly for ~51% of the population and are not one homogenous group. I am sure there are plenty of women in the US with the same experience and qualifications as men, doing the exact same job, for the exact same pay rates.

---

Who are you talking to, Rand? :confused: In case you didn't know, US military policy doesn't treat genders, or heads of households equally. The UK might, but the US doesn't.

I'm talking to you, hence why I quoted you and responded to you. Name a single law that treats women as having lesser rights please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm talking to you, hence why I quoted you and responded to you. Name a single law that treats women as having lesser rights please.

---

In the US, women have more (restricted) rights in birth control/family planning than your British colleagues. Even if US women go to the doctor, and get a prescription for Plan B....they might have a pharmacist that refuses to fill the order, citing their own religious ideology.

That's not one single law, but it indicates the challenges women face in US 50 states.

That's got bugger all to do with discrimination between genders like you said. Do men go routinely to get that exact same prescription filled without issue? While Britain is irrelevant to a comparison between genders in the USA.

Your claim was that while gays are finally getting rights others have taken granted for centuries, women had less rights. That's simply absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's got bugger all to do with discrimination between genders like you said. Do men go routinely to get that exact same prescription filled without issue? While Britain is irrelevant to a comparison between genders in the USA.

---

Male and female contraceptives are not equivalent. :bored:

Quote:

---

Your claim was that while gays are finally getting rights others have taken granted for centuries, women had less rights. That's simply absurd.

---

No, I was lamenting the fact that women's rights only became "legitimate" when powerful men accepted it against their will, or political cause. Ditto for slavery or child labor or homosexuality.

If they're not equivalent, they're not relevant. And no you were lamenting that today "women still don't have ... equal rights". The motives of 50 years ago are again redundant to the issue of equality today, whereas currently homosexuals genuinely are discriminated against in 12 states under the law. If you believe that women are so badly discriminated against today "still" then please say a right men have that women don't in the USA.

In an interesting case in Texas a district court has ordered a county to issue a marriage license immediately on the basis that the couple asking for it were of poor health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm talking to you, hence why I quoted you and responded to you. Name a single law that treats women as having lesser rights please.

---

To be fair, you didn't actually quote her. No use of quote tags or quotation marks in your earlier post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

To be fair, you didn't actually quote her. No use of quote tags or quotation marks in your earlier post.

---

Oops sorry GGT I thought I had pressed quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Well, unless you intend to be part of some future backlash against gay marriage or gay rights, I'd say that we're reaching the point where you need to just get over it.

---

You know that my objection is entirely procedural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There was no backlash years ago to the case that ended sodomy laws and I can't see there being a backlash if the legal battle against equal marriage ends this year.

---

Gay marriage is about a lot more than consensual sex. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Merely more proof that it's wrong to let civil rights of minorities be the play thing of the majority. Pure democracy too often is little more than a tyranny of the majority. I see first hand proof of that in Turkey; as the country became more democratic it actuallly became less free.

---

That's partially because the country's civil society was warped by quasi-dictatorship. The whole point of the democratic process is to create a framework where people can argue, convince and disagree with each other. That process was very much happening in the US, and it was an important process to have continued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Gay marriage is about a lot more than consensual sex. :confused:

---

Why?

For those who are opposed they're not opposed because marriage is a sin. They're opposed because sodomy is. The variable is the sex.

No, the variable is teh gay.

Exactly. The sodomy not the marriage is the issue. There is no reason to oppose gay marriage that didn't apply to opposing gay sex. Hence the discriminatory laws that existed until SCOTUS squashed them. Now Dread seems to think SCOTUS doesn't have a job to do here to protect US citizens anymore, if it was up to him it seems those anti-sodomy laws would still be on the books too I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You know that my objection is entirely procedural.



Gay marriage is about a lot more than consensual sex. :confused:



That's partially because the country's civil society was warped by quasi-dictatorship. The whole point of the democratic process is to create a framework where people can argue, convince and disagree with each other. That process was very much happening in the US, and it was an important process to have continued.

---

Argue, try to convince and then vote away the rights of the opposing party you mean? Because that was what really was happening.

Of course marriage equality, or rather the lack thereof is very much about the sodomy. If it weren't for the sodomy the sex obsessed religious nomenclature wouldn't get so worked up about 2 people dealing with their personal affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You know that my objection is entirely procedural.

---

Then as I said, we're reaching the point where it's time to just let that one go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There is no reason to oppose gay marriage that didn't apply to opposing gay sex.

---

Money. More marriages means more happy familes, which means more people eligible for shit like insurance. Companies hate losing the ability to screw over their employees in any manner. Of course you can spin it a million different ways to work up the religious wackos, but never doubt the money. Add it to the reasons why insurance shouldn't be tied to employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Argue, try to convince and then vote away the rights of the opposing party you mean? Because that was what really was happening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Exactly. The sodomy not the marriage is the issue. There is no reason to oppose gay marriage that didn't apply to opposing gay sex. Hence the discriminatory laws that existed until SCOTUS squashed them. Now Dread seems to think SCOTUS doesn't have a job to do here to protect US citizens anymore, if it was up to him it seems those anti-sodomy laws would still be on the books too I guess.

---

I think property taxes are abhorrent. You don't see me going to the courts to divine a new "right" to be free of property taxes. We have a political process, and after years of setbacks the debate was finally moving in the right direction.

So, equal protection under the law is a new right for gays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think property taxes are abhorrent. You don't see me going to the courts to divine a new "right" to be free of property taxes. We have a political process, and after years of setbacks the debate was finally moving in the right direction.

---

To say the 'debate was finally moving in the right direction' is a blatant lie. The debate wasn't going anywhere with aggressive policies left right and in the middle aiming to deprive minorities of a chance of equal treatment through amendments to state constitutions.

If the Courts have no role in striking down legislation so blatantly discriminatory I don't know what their role is at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think property taxes are abhorrent. You don't see me going to the courts to divine a new "right" to be free of property taxes. We have a political process, and after years of setbacks the debate was finally moving in the right direction.

---

Equal protection isn't a new right. Its in the Constitution.

If property taxes only applied to gays, or blacks, or women then it would be unconstitutional.

No, guys, it makes perfect sense. Until this business started, "equal protection" for gays didn't entail marriage rights on their terms. That interpretation is new and completely fabricated. Until recently, the idea was that "equal protection" in this matter wasn't an issue at all because homosexual men and women had just as much right as heterosexual men and women to enter heterosexual marriages. If you start redefining marriage based on a redefinition of the right to equal protection then where will you stop? Obamacare was just the tip of the iceberg. If we want to do good things such as opposing the evil that is Obamacare, we also have to do dumb things like endorsing the evil that is marriage inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

So, equal protection under the law is a new right for gays?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Equal protection isn't a new right. Its in the Constitution.

If property taxes only applied to gays, or blacks, or women then it would be unconstitutional.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

To say the 'debate was finally moving in the right direction' is a blatant lie. The debate wasn't going anywhere with aggressive policies left right and in the middle aiming to deprive minorities of a chance of equal treatment through amendments to state constitutions.

If the Courts have no role in striking down legislation so blatantly discriminatory I don't know what their role is at all.

---

The debate was moving in the right direction. Several states had started allowing gay marriages, while others had not. The trend of polls was moving in a clearly favorable direction.

That is how you change the definition of a marriage, which had been static for a very long time. It's not unreasonable to expect a very modern interpretation to take some time to make its way through the political meat grinder. "Equal protection" is a very focused concept that you can't just throw-out into any situation that is unfair.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner...ing#.kl4LrxqwA

wonder how many stories like this Dread would consider acceptable until everyone is treated equally.

No doubt if it was eg Jews being persecuted rather than gays he'd be singing a different tune. Equal protection means people are protected equally, you don't get to cherrypick who you deny basic human rights to.

Dread the Supreme Court decided decades ago that equal protection applied to marriages in Loving v Virginia should that be overturned in your eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No doubt if it was eg Jews being persecuted rather than gays he'd be singing a different tune. Equal protection means people are protected equally, you don't get to cherrypick who you deny basic human rights to.

Dread the Supreme Court decided decades ago that equal protection applied to marriages in Loving v Virginia should that be overturned in your eyes?

---

I've told you before and I'll tell you again. That's not what Loving did. The case was explicitly limited to invidious racial discrimination by the authoring justice, applying a heightened legal standard which SCOTUS has regularly denied should be applied to homosexuality. Loving is not and will not be precedent here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, guys, it makes perfect sense. Until this business started, "equal protection" for gays didn't entail marriage rights on their terms. That interpretation is new and completely fabricated. Until recently, the idea was that "equal protection" in this matter wasn't an issue at all because homosexual men and women had just as much right as heterosexual men and women to enter heterosexual marriages. If you start redefining marriage based on a redefinition of the right to equal protection then where will you stop? Obamacare was just the tip of the iceberg. If we want to do good things such as opposing the evil that is Obamacare, we also have to do dumb things like endorsing the evil that is marriage inequality.

---

I'm in favor of ending marriage as a secular institution however I really have to wonder at the silliness the courts bring on. 50 years ago what percentage of people thought the equal protection clause would apply to homosexual marriage? 30 years ago? 20 years ago? Oh wow sudden spike in it recently right as social acceptance reaches new highs! The court should never look to popular movements as a sign to revisit issues. It goes completely against the point of having a check on the will of the people if the courts decide to join in on the bandwagon.

However I fear people only care about the results of actions as opposed to the principal behind them.

Consider States rights vs. Federal Rights.

If the state gives you what you want you are in favor of states rights. If the Federal government gives you what you want you are not in favor of states rights. Essentially people care about pet issues and not about the process and the process is vital or you'll one day end in a nightmare scenario where 51% of the people can completely control the 49%. And that's bad because the mob is easily riled up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm in favor of ending marriage as a secular institution however I really have to wonder at the silliness the courts bring on. 50 years ago what percentage of people thought the equal protection clause would apply to homosexual marriage? 30 years ago? 20 years ago? Oh wow sudden spike in it recently right as social acceptance reaches new highs! The court should never look to popular movements as a sign to revisit issues. It goes completely against the point of having a check on the will of the people if the courts decide to join in on the bandwagon.

However I fear people only care about the results of actions as opposed to the principal behind them.

Consider States rights vs. Federal Rights.

If the state gives you what you want you are in favor of states rights. If the Federal government gives you what you want you are not in favor of states rights. Essentially people care about pet issues and not about the process and the process is vital or you'll one day end in a nightmare scenario where 51% of the people can completely control the 49%. And that's bad because the mob is easily riled up.

---

Now that is a cool bunch of arguments. I especially like that one where you admit that the referenda were a nightmare. But it doesn't match with the one where you rile against the expansion of equal treatment, because that's of course the courts slowly doing their job as a counterweight to the mob rule you despise.