Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[TimmySmith 2,783]

There are many variations of what the SC may decide.

 

The top 3 seem to be (in no order).

 

1. Do nothing and respect Cal law or invalidate the appeal process. Either way keeps the law in place.

 

2. Overturn Law due to it's discriminatory nature, therefore possibly making same sex marriage legal in Cal.

 

3. Nullify the process in which the law was made due to discriminatory nature, making no decision as to the legality of same sex marriage.

 

 

Seems like 3 is the most likely outcome.

[hoytdwow 202]

I'll go out on a limb and predict a 5-4 ruling, with Kennedy tipping the balance.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Option 3 seems most likely.

 

What, exactly, is the big deal with dykes and pickle-smoochers having the ability to be "married"?

[Bert 1,128]

Great another tax dodge. Just what we need.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

I'll go out on a limb and predict a 5-4 ruling, with Kennedy tipping the balance.

 

I'll add to your prediction that Scalia will go to great lengths to prove that Founding Fathers only recognized marriage as that between a man and woman with an interpretation that has no basis in historical documentation...also that 3 times someone will check the pulse of Justice Thomas to see if he's still alive.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

There are many variations of what the SC may decide.

 

The top 3 seem to be (in no order).

 

1. Do nothing and respect Cal law or invalidate the appeal process. Either way keeps the law in place.

 

2. Overturn Law due to it's discriminatory nature, therefore possibly making same sex marriage legal in Cal.

 

3. Nullify the process in which the law was made due to discriminatory nature, making no decision as to the legality of same sex marriage.

 

 

Seems like 3 is the most likely outcome.

How was the process discriminatory?

 

Wasn't it put on the ballot to be voted on statewide?

[KSB2424 3,172]

Option 3 seems most likely.

 

What, exactly, is the big deal with dykes and pickle-smoochers having the ability to be "married"?

Why can't they just get a civil union with all the same gov't benefits (a certificate, tax status, legal status, etc.)?

 

Etymology of the word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 12501300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband and wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

[TimmySmith 2,783]

How was the process discriminatory?

 

Wasn't it put on the ballot to be voted on statewide?

One issue as I see it, was that same sex marriage was recognized in Cal. prior to prop 8, and those marriages are prior to 2008 are still recognized.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I expect a narrow ruling.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Why can't they just get a civil union with all the same gov't benefits (a certificate, tax status, legal status, etc.)?

 

 

 

Yeah they should do that...cause separate but equal has always worked wonderfully in this country.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Yeah they should do that...cause separate but equal has always worked wonderfully in this country.

Its not seperate but equal though. Seperate but equal was the government saying blacks have to go to seperate schools, etc. This is something totally different. A very bad analogy Mike.

 

It's okay to be different folks. Human beings are not all cookie cutter and we have some need to have everybody the same. As long as nobody is being discriminated against (as in they can't get the same jobs, eductaion, government benefits, etc.) then its okay for there to be different classifications of 'civil unions'.

 

If a person is ghey then they are different from a person who is not ghey. Why is that taboo to say? It's true.

 

I most certainly think if two consenting gheys want to form a union that is recognized by the governemnt and get the same rights deemed by the government then they should be able too. But its not being married. Marriage is already defined folks and its between a man and woman. What marriage is today was brought to this country and implemented by the Church. We can't just up and decide to change the rules and definitions of words on a whim.

 

It's okay to be different. We should embrace our differencies instead of always trying to somehow make everybody the same. That's whats stupid.

[hoytdwow 202]

Why can't they just get a civil union with all the same gov't benefits (a certificate, tax status, legal status, etc.)?

Why can't they just get focking married?

[KSB2424 3,172]

Why can't they just get focking married?

They can, but married, the term, the definition, the history, the way it was established here in this country, all of it is between a man and a woman. That's what marraige is.

 

To be honest its like saying, "Why can't we just call a fruit a vegetable!@#!" Well Hoyt, because its just not. A fruit is a fruit and a vegetable is a vegetable. Not sure what else to tell you.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Its not seperate but equal though. Seperate but equal was the government saying blacks have to go to seperate schools, etc. This is something totally different. A very bad analogy Mike.

 

It's okay to be different folks. Human beings are not all cookie cutter and we have some need to have everybody the same. As long as nobody is being discriminated against (as in they can't get the same jobs, eductaion, government benefits, etc.) then its okay for there to be different classifications of 'civil unions'.

 

If a person is ghey then they are different from a person who is not ghey. Why is that taboo to say? It's true.

 

I most certainly think if two consenting gheys want to form a union that is recognized by the governemnt and get the same rights deemed by the government then they should be able too. But its not being married. Marriage is already defined folks and its between a man and woman. What marriage is today was brought to this country and implemented by the Church. We can't just up and decide to change the rules and definitions of words on a whim.

 

It's okay to be different. We should embrace our differencies instead of always trying to somehow make everybody the same. That's whats stupid.

 

Yeah, you proposing, separate but equal terms/laws is a terrible analogy---you know, those being actual laws and stuff(in the 50's and 60's) and you proposing actual legal changes to the law to make a separate but equal distinction....

 

Just because something was defined 2000 years ago in latin, doesn't mean we can evolve and recognize a different world view.

 

Nobody is saying we shouldn't embrace our differences, what is being said is the state/govt can't treat people differently...and it's stupid to think this about anything but that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Nobody is saying we shouldn't embrace our differences, what is being said is the state/govt can't treat people differently...and it's stupid to think this about anything but that.

 

So you think the Govt should tax every American the same.

 

I can support that.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

I mean, if the gheys can get married, who says we should stop there? Groups should be able to get married too, right?

[MDC 7,825]

I mean, if the gheys can get married, who says we should stop there? Groups should be able to get married too, right?

 

How about we just stop at 2 consenting adults?

[OldMaid 2,134]

[sUXBNME] I want to marry my cat! [/sUXBNME]

[hoytdwow 202]

They can, but married, the term, the definition, the history, the way it was established here in this country, all of it is between a man and a woman. That's what marraige is.

 

To be honest its like saying, "Why can't we just call a fruit a vegetable!@#!" Well Hoyt, because its just not. A fruit is a fruit and a vegetable is a vegetable. Not sure what else to tell you.

There is no law preventing you from calling a fruit a vegetable. Such laws are ridiculous.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How about we just stop at 2 consenting adults?

Why stop there?

[KSB2424 3,172]

There is no law preventing you from calling a fruit a vegetable. Such laws are ridiculous.

It's an unspoken rule. Sort of like stealing home in baseball with a 8 run lead.

 

I'll tell you what Hoyt. The next time your ghey friends invite you to a dinner party and they ask you to bring a gourmet fruit bowl, show up with a bowl of corn and green beans instead. See if you are ever invited to another one of their chic and fabulous dinner parties ever again!@#!

[jerryskids 7,053]

One issue as I see it, was that same sex marriage was recognized in Cal. prior to prop 8, and those marriages are prior to 2008 are still recognized.

 

Interesting... I think eventually the courts will rule that such public elections are civil rights violations for gheys, but I don't think we are there yet. Besides, SCOTUS generally likes to narrow its rulings when possible. So they will probably make the distinction you mentioned.

[MDC 7,825]

Why stop there?

 

Why not?

[KSB2424 3,172]

Why not?

Because we already stopped. We stopped at the 'one man and one woman' stop sign. We did it along time ago.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

They can, but married, the term, the definition, the history, the way it was established here in this country, all of it is between a man and a woman. That's what marraige is.

 

To be honest its like saying, "Why can't we just call a fruit a vegetable!@#!" Well Hoyt, because its just not. A fruit is a fruit and a vegetable is a vegetable. Not sure what else to tell you.

 

I don't give a damn about "the sanctity of marriage", not when you've got internet sites like ashleymadison.com and more than half of all marriages end in divorce. Sanctity my ass.

[MDC 7,825]

Because we already stopped. We stopped at the 'one man and one woman' stop sign. We did it along time ago.

 

At one time you could've said the same thing about limits on interracial marriage. You're going to need a more compelling reason for limiting the marriage rights of consenting adults than "That's the way it's always been."

[KSB2424 3,172]

I don't give a damn about "the sanctity of marriage", not when you've got internet sites like ashleymadison.com and more than half of all marriages under in divorce. Sanctity my ass.

You're correct. The sanctity of marriage is being bastardized more and more as time goes on. Maybe we should try to correct that instead of bastardizing it further? Just a suggestion.

[KSB2424 3,172]

At one time you could've said the same thing about limits on interracial marriage. You're going to need a more compelling reason for limiting the marriage rights of consenting adults than "That's the way it's always been."

I don't ever remember seeing a definition of marraige saying between one man and one woman of the same color. I'm sure back in the day certain folks felt that way or certain churches didn't perform those for reasons but if they did, it was because they were not following the defintion of Marraige, but their own personal defintion. Not the other way around.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

You're correct. The sanctity of marriage is being bastardized more and more as time goes on. Maybe we should try to correct that instead of bastardizing it further? Just a suggestion.

 

I don't think it's "bastardizing" the institution to allow loving consenting adults to join in marriage. My point is that it's a tad naive to pretend this is some sort of sacred institution beyond reproach or reform.

[MDC 7,825]

I don't ever remember seeing a definition of marraige saying between one man and one woman of the same color. I'm sure back in the day certain folks felt that way or certain churches didn't perform those for reasons but if they did, it was because they were not following the defintion of Marraige, but their own personal defintion. Not the other way around.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why not?

If the definition is gonna be changed, WTF gives you the power to say one thing is acceptable and another isn't?

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I don't ever remember seeing a definition of marraige saying between one man and one woman of the same color. I'm sure back in the day certain folks felt that way or certain churches didn't perform those for reasons but if they did, it was because they were not following the defintion of Marraige, but their own personal defintion. Not the other way around.

 

That's absurd. So the true definition of "marriage" is and always has been what YOU personally think it is now, even though just a short time ago most Americans subscribed to a different definition prohibiting interracial unions?

[KSB2424 3,172]

I don't think it's "bastardizing" the institution to allow loving consenting adults to join in marriage. My point is that it's a tad naive to pretend this is some sort of sacred institution beyond reproach or reform.

For the record, here in NC we had an Amendment vote last year. The state amendment stated that the gov't would only recognize marraige between a man and a woman. A vote FOR the amendment was essentially a vote against ghey marriage. I voted AGAINST the amendment even though I've posted what I've posted in this thread.

 

The reason? At this point the public dialog on this topic is to far along for the correct thing to be done in my opinion. The line has been drawn in the sand and the Gheys want, they have to, they are fighting for not only having a recognized union but it must be called Marriage too.

 

So I only had two options, both of which I didn't like. I chose the lesser of two evils if you will. I'd rather we bastardize and change the defintion of the term Marraige than discriminate against gheys. Because they should have the same GOVERNMENT benefits that other couples get. If the only way that happens, due to this stupid line in the sand, is to bastardize the true meaning of marriage then I guess that's what we have to do. Still doesn't mean I think its the best way to solve this issue or like it one bit.

[MDC 7,825]

If the definition is gonna be changed, WTF gives you the power to say one thing is acceptable and another isn't?

 

The definition was changed when states started putting bans on same sex marriage into their constitutions.

[nikki2200 4]

Why can't they just get a civil union with all the same gov't benefits (a certificate, tax status, legal status, etc.)?

 

Why can't they just get married?

[KSB2424 3,172]

Whats so hard to understand. Marraige, in this country, the one we are talking about its laws was derived from the Church. The people that sailed their asses over here and established modern day America. That defintion was between 1 man and 1 woman. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

If an individual church went above and beyond that defintion (races, animals, gheys, whatever) then that was their own personal adendum to the defintion. That's on them. It doesn't change what Marraige has always meant here in America.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The definition was changed when states started putting bans on same sex marriage into their constitutions.

The definition stayed the same. It was just added to state Constitutions.

 

I see you dodged the question.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

For the record, here in NC we had an Amendment vote last year. The state amendment stated that the gov't would only recognize marraige between a man and a woman. A vote FOR the amendment was essentially a vote against ghey marriage. I voted AGAINST the amendment even though I've posted what I've posted in this thread.

 

The reason? At this point the public dialog on this topic is to far along for the correct thing to be done in my opinion. The line has been drawn in the sand and the Gheys want, they have to, the are fighting for not only having a recognized union but it must be called Marriage too.

 

So I only had two options, both of which I didn't like. I chose the lesser of two evils if you will. I'd rather we bastardize and change the defintion of the term Marraige than discriminate against gheys. Because they should have the same GOVERNMENT benefits that other couples get. If the only way that happens, due to this stupid line in the sand, is to bastardize the true meaning of marriage then I guess that's what we have to do. Still doesn't mean I think its the best way to solve this issue or like it one bit.

 

Fair enough. I wasn't intending to place you on the defensive or anything, I just don't understand why people think marriage is a sacred institution set in stone when we know that today marriages fail more often than not. I could understand this argument more in old England where it was totally scandalous or even heresy to get a divorce.

 

Anyway I think the answer is to let gheys "marry" but don't force the churches to perform ghey marriages (which I assume would be a violation of the First Amendment anyway). So you'd have civil marriages, church marriages by ghey-friendly denominations, and "traditional" church marriages.

[nikki2200 4]

How was the process discriminatory?

 

Wasn't it put on the ballot to be voted on statewide?

 

So errr Mr. Constitutionalist... you think it's OK for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

[MDC 7,825]

The definition stayed the same. It was just added to state Constitutions.

 

I see you dodged the question.

 

The constitutional definition changed, right? So changing it again shouldn't be a big deal.

 

Your question was stupid. HTH