Cocoa Lounge
[Login ]
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this page
Go To Bottom
Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favorites  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: Should California gays have the right to get married?
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

alert.gif posted on 1.11.2010 at 12:34 PM
Should California gays have the right to get married?


The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

The trial is the first to weigh if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses.

The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.


Appeal expected

Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.

The judge who will render a decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, has asked lawyers arguing for and against the ban to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among the questions Walker plans to entertain are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.

"The case is intriguing, exciting and potentially very significant because it addresses multiple important questions that, surprisingly to many, remain open in federal law," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?"

The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown refused to. The attorney general and the governor are defendants in the case because of their positions in state government.

Lawyers for the measure's backers plan to argue that because same-sex marriage still is a social experiment, it is wise for states like California to take a wait-and-see approach. Their witnesses will testify that governments historically have sanctioned traditional marriage as a way to promote responsible child-rearing and that this remains a valid justification for limiting marriage to a man and a woman.


First use of witnesses

While other courts have wrestled with the constitutional issues raised by prohibiting same-sex marriages - the Supreme Court last took a look at the issue 38 years ago - Walker's court is the first to employ live witnesses in the task. Among those set to testify are the leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign, academic experts from the fields of political science, history, psychology and economics, and the two plaintiff couples - Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who live in Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, who live in Los Angeles.

Among those set to testify are the leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign, academic experts from the fields of political science, history, psychology and economics, and the two plaintiff couples - Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who live in Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, who live in Los Angeles.

Chad Griffin, a political consultant who helped spearhead the lawsuit, said the four were recruited to represent California couples who say they would get married were it not for Proposition 8 because they lead lives indistinguishable from those of other couples, gay or straight, who have jobs, children and a desire for the social stamp of approval that matrimony affords, Griffin said.

"Our story, I think, is pretty ordinary," said Perry, 45, the title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. "We fell in love, we want to get married and we can't. It's pretty simple." The women have been together for almost 10 years and since 2004 have been registered domestic partners, a legal relationship that in California carries most of the benefits and obligations of a full-fledged marriage.

Stier, 47, was married to a man for 12 years. She said the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, part of what will be debated during the trial, are profound. She and Perry have to take extra legal precautions when they travel to states that do not recognize gay relationships and continually explain to friends and family what a domestic partnership is, Stier said.

"I had that feeling of security that comes with marriage and the assumption of many of the comforts and protections society affords. I can feel the difference in a very personal way," she said. "The word 'partnership' is used for business deals, tennis matches and golf games. It doesn't feel like the appropriate kind of word to describe my relationship with the person I love."



Justices block broadcast of gay marriage trial - MSNBC Articles
Address: http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=34801259




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
waterboxer
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********




Posts: 13622

Registered: 4.16.2004

Location: ATL.

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 12:44 PM


Sure as long as they make all other forms of Marriage that are considered taboo in this country Legal as well.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
deep_thinker
Lifetime Member
*******




Posts: 8817

Registered: 3.29.2005

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 12:44 PM


To respond to the titular question, if in fact the federal government has left the decision up to the states and the state of California has posed the issue to the people, and the people rejected it, then no.

Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) this article doesn't explain the legal reasons for appealing and rejecting the vote on Prop 8. So I can't speak on that without additional information.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
waterboxer
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********




Posts: 13622

Registered: 4.16.2004

Location: ATL.

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 01:55 PM


I don't think there's a way to legally defend banning gays to marry. Religion, Morals, and Opinion don't matter in the court room. I must say though, these Gay rights activists are some of the most self-serving people on the planet earth. Nothing they are fighting for benefits anyone accept gays. Which makes them quite annoying.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
waterboxer
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********




Posts: 13622

Registered: 4.16.2004

Location: ATL.

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 02:53 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Tea_Honey
I disagree that there is no legally defensive way to ban gay marriage. It depends on how the law defines marriage. Through common usage throughout the ages, marriage has always been "understood" to be a union of a man and woman. It has NEVER been because 2 people love each other and want a legal commitment.

In addition, throughout the ages, not only has marriage been thought of as a union of a man and a woman, but of as a man and a woman to procreate and have legal rights to and for their progeny. For ex., there is no legal "right" to adopt. You can apply and be turned down for whatever reason. So yes, there is a legal defense against gay marriage.

Perhaps I am wrong. However, I would think (with limited knowledge) that this definition of marriage is based on a religious ideology.

Although it's :topic: I find your last statement to be intriguing. Had not thought of it that way, but it is true that there is no benefit to anyone other than gays for gay marriage. All the civil rights laws fought for by blacks benefit everyone.... especially white women, many of whom were dead set against those laws. Equal housing laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that blacks fought for benefit all minorities, including gays who before same, were routinely evicted for spurious reasons or fired from jobs because they were gay. :ummm:

This is spot on and exactly what I was eluding too.

View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
grrlie
Supreme Member
******


Avatar


Posts: 4304

Registered: 12.30.2005

Location: NY

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 03:09 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Tea_Honey
Quote:
Originally posted by deep_thinker
To respond to the titular question, if in fact the federal government has left the decision up to the states and the state of California has posed the issue to the people, and the people rejected it, then no.

Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) this article doesn't explain the legal reasons for appealing and rejecting the vote on Prop 8. So I can't speak on that without additional information.



Unfortunately you responded a minute before I got in my post. :lol: At any rate, I don't "care for" (?) this response in that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution is to safeguard the liberties of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. So just because the majority voted against it, in my estimation, does not mean it should not be overturned.


EDIT:

Going to the questions I posed, I think the gay rights plaintiffs should most def use this constitutional argument!


I agree completely.

Yeah I don't know the arguments the plaintiffs are using either.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 03:15 PM


It does not matter what the man/woman union is based upon, There ARE marriage laws.... and I'm pretty sure the law reads a union between 2 "persons." Persons has always been understood to mean a man and a woman and until gays wanted to get married, that "assumption" was never challenged. Whether it is based upon religious theology is irrelevant. MOST laws are based upon religious theology, e.g., thou shalt not kill... thou shalt not steal.... even thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife as in some states, a cheated upon spouse can sue for "alienation of affection." So the origins of the law is irrelevant.



View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
deep_thinker
Lifetime Member
*******




Posts: 8817

Registered: 3.29.2005

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 04:58 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Tea_Honey
Quote:
Originally posted by deep_thinker
To respond to the titular question, if in fact the federal government has left the decision up to the states and the state of California has posed the issue to the people, and the people rejected it, then no.

Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) this article doesn't explain the legal reasons for appealing and rejecting the vote on Prop 8. So I can't speak on that without additional information.



Unfortunately you responded a minute before I got in my post. :lol: At any rate, I don't "care for" (?) this response in that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution is to safeguard the liberties of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. So just because the majority voted against it, in my estimation, does not mean it should not be overturned.


I suppose it matters what you define as tyranny. I do not think it is tyrannical for a group of people to decide that culturally and socially they want to retain their traditional belief structure by not modifying the concept of marriage to be more inclusive. While many would claim it is hypocritical given the state of the institution of marriage, I think ultimately it speaks to an intrinsic desire that people have to hold on to something that reminds them of their value system and their traditions.

There is also no getting away from the fact that people are going to allow their religious beliefs to determine how they vote and by and large this is a Christian nation. I would not expect people to respond positively to a petition that asks us to say "In a Higher Power We Trust" or "In Divinity We Trust" instead of "In God We Trust".
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 06:52 PM


Marriage is as secular as it is religious (not just Christian - all religions say male/female(s) ). A marriage performed at City Hall is as valid as one in the Catholic Church. Plus, after performing the marriage, the priest is bound, by law, to file papers with City Hall.

Also, can't speak for all, but for those like myself, it's not even a religious issue. Too little is known of the homosexual impulse and what is known can be confusing because it's foreign to heterosexual thinking, to the way OUR brains are wired. Difficult enough to explain what we do know to heterosexual children with less life experience, thus are more easily confused. Then to have to come up with a new definition for marriage - one that has substantive meaning such as the union between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation, whether it happens or not - to explain same-sex unions is pretty daunting. Maybe I sound a little muddled, but my kind of non-religion equivocation on the subject is what the gay activists will have to overcome in court. :dunno:




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Diamond
Lifetime Member
*******


Avatar


Posts: 8269

Registered: 3.18.2004

Location: Dirty Souf

Member Is Offline


Mood: Flawless Black Beauty

[*] posted on 1.11.2010 at 08:35 PM


I'm confused by this whole thing...didn't Cali pass some bill amking it legal for Cali Gays to marry each other...have i been sleeping under a rock...

this feels like deja vu...this Cali Gay Marraige issue...wasn't it solved already...or was that Massachusetts...shoot..I coulda sworn it was Cali....

and if Cali NEVER EVER passed a Gay marraige bill...I do ask huh, why..as open and laissez fairre they seem to be...where anything goes...

wow...have i been doing a rip van winkle or something...:sleep:




Winners Never Quit...Quitters Never Win...
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
grrlie
Supreme Member
******


Avatar


Posts: 4304

Registered: 12.30.2005

Location: NY

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1.12.2010 at 12:21 PM


^ Last November a ballot initiative (prop 8) passed to add an amendment to the California constitution restricting marraige to only couples of the opposite sex.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
soulitude78
Lifetime Member
*******




Posts: 9094

Registered: 10.25.2004

Location: In my head

Member Is Offline


Mood: Thoughtful.

[*] posted on 1.12.2010 at 01:28 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by waterboxer
Gay rights activists are some of the most self-serving people on the planet earth. Nothing they are fighting for benefits anyone accept gays. Which makes them quite annoying.


Gay rights activists can be self serving, I agree. However, this issue of marriage, in your opinion, although you disagree with homosexuality, what method of advocacy could gays use in order to be more inclusive of other groups? What other groups are affected by the laws that prohibit gays to marry?




"Did you read the Article because that's not what she said and your FONT Color is Whack. "

-Waterboxer
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
BrownBomber
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 12121

Registered: 6.22.2004

Location: new york city,n,y,

Member Is Offline


Mood: good

[*] posted on 1.12.2010 at 02:28 PM


Why not?...Do you honestly think that two Gay men or two Lesbians getting married is gonna be the downfall of civilization? Utter nonsense.They should be allowed to get married and have all the legal rights that that entails.Almost half of Heteros who get married wind up in divorce court.Gay marriages would have a bitch of a time topping that(lol).Besides sooner or later its gonna be countrywide instead of a few states.A marriage should be between two loving adults.If Adam and Steve are in that mix,what;s the big deal??
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
speakout
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 11472

Registered: 10.26.2006

Location: london

Member Is Offline


Mood: Restoration

[*] posted on 1.13.2010 at 06:27 AM


let them start families and fill the earth.



William Casey "We will know that we have succeeded when everything the public believes is false"

"Buy truth and do not sell it" proverbs of King Solomon

"We are denying with our mouths what we are working hard to achieve with our hands" Arnold Toynbee , Royal Institute Of International Affairs (CFR England)

My president is a british manchunian canditate assassin

http://designsdelight.com
http://commodityonlinetradingz.com/
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
soulitude78
Lifetime Member
*******




Posts: 9094

Registered: 10.25.2004

Location: In my head

Member Is Offline


Mood: Thoughtful.

[*] posted on 1.14.2010 at 11:06 AM


Water? Input on my question?



"Did you read the Article because that's not what she said and your FONT Color is Whack. "

-Waterboxer
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
 Pages:  1  2


  Go To Top


Powered by XMB 1.9.8 Engage Final SP2
Developed By The XMB Group © 2001-2008
Black Female Celebrities
Modifications installed by XMB Garage © 2004-2008
[Queries: 19] [PHP: 96.6% - SQL: 3.4%]