Prop 8 over turned - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #76 08-04-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Two people do not need to be "married" to jointly own property of any kind...

That is a true statement, but it misses the point. Tenants by the entirety is a particular type of joint ownership that, as MTI explained, has a huge advantage over other types of joint ownership. Only married people can own property as tenants by the entirety, or at least that is the case here in Virginia.

Quote:

"Shall not be discriminated upon based on sex, age, race, creed, or national origin."

Exactly where or how in that statement are homosexuals excluded or unequal?...

That statement says nothing about sexual orientation. Why do you ask?

DeliveryValve · #77 08-04-2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

....
"Shall not be discriminated upon based on sex, age, race, creed, or national origin."

Exactly where or how in that statement are homosexuals excluded or unequal?

They're beating a dead horse.....

From today's ruling.

Quote:

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall]
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.”
US Const Amend XIV, § 1.
Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that Proposition 8
violates this fundamental right because:
1. It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice;
2. The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth
Amendment from the state’s unwarranted usurpation of that choice; and
3. California’s provision of a domestic partnership —— a status giving
same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without
providing marriage —— does not afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute
for marriage and, by disabling plaintiffs from marrying the person of
theirchoice, invidiously discriminates without justification, against
plaintiffs and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex.
The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall
“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.”
US Const Amend XIV, § 1.
According to plaintiffs,
Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it:
1. Discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to
marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women
may do so freely; and
2. Disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and
lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.
Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 8 should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class. Plaintiffs further contend that Proposition 8 is irrational because it singles out gays and lesbians for unequal treatment, as they and they alone may not marry the person of their choice.
Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians on the basis of both sexual orientation and sex.

Plaintiffs conclude that because Proposition 8 is enforced by state officials acting under color of state law and because it has the effects plaintiffs assert, Proposition 8 is actionable under 42 USC § 1983.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Proposition 8 is invalid and an injunction against its enforcement.

.

davidmash · #78 08-04-2010, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10fords

How exactly do genetics come into play in gay marriage? There is a reason Mother Nature has seen to it that homosexuals can't procreate. No court can overturn that. As far as I'm concerned, let them get "married", but don't let them have children.

The subject of siblings getting married was brought up and hence the genetics argument.

davidmash · #79 08-05-2010, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Two people do not need to be "married" to jointly own property of any kind. That's a red-herring, throw away cause....

"Shall not be discriminated upon based on sex, age, race, creed, or national origin."

Exactly where or how in that statement are homosexuals excluded or unequal?

They're beating a dead horse.....

And you are still missing the point. Yes there are some legal remedies/work arounds that allow gay couples to have similar rights as hetero married couples such as POA, wills and other legal documents. The mere fact that they must jump though hoops that heteros do not means that their rights are not equal to the heteros. The 14th says that laws cannot do that.

I am sorry you cannot understand this but it has been explained several times that the rights are not equal. Accept it or don't. It matters not. The former solicitor general for Bush thinks there is a case and that prop 8 is wrong. He has been before the SCOTUS a few times. I'd say he probably knows what he is saying.

10fords · #80 08-05-2010, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

In nature, you can have sex and procreated with your sister. So, by that criteria, you would be considered fit then?

I am by no means an advocate of the practice, but in nature incest happens all the time

Scruffyguy1981 · #81 08-05-2010, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Mother nature has seen to it people get sick and die early. We are screwing around with that too. So, WGAS about mother nature or whatever he/she is wanting?

Exactly. A baby is born premature - let it die. Someone has cancer - let them die. Someone is diabetic - let them die. Nature sees them unfit, yet humans play "god" all the time.

Scruffyguy1981 · #82 08-05-2010, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10fords

I am by no means an advocate of the practice, but in nature incest happens all the time

That reminds me of some rabbits I had as a kid. Both boys, and brothers. They were gay and incestuous!

davidmash · #83 08-05-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffyguy1981

That reminds me of some rabbits I had as a kid. Both boys, and brothers. They were gay and incestuous!

And I am sure your rabbits made a conscious choice to be gay.

JollyRoger · #84 08-05-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

In exactly what ways is a homosexual unequal to anyone in the U.S.?

Did you get to marry the person you love that you wanted to spend your life with? That's called the Right To The Pursuit of Happiness - one of the three fundamental rights this country was founded to protect. Why is that so hard for anyone to see ? It is so simple, so concise, and so obvious a violation of basic human rights, that this entire discussion is absurd. You claim you have a right to pursue happiness, then you claim you have a right to deny it to others. Absurd.

JollyRoger · #85 08-05-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Homosexuals have ALL the rights guaranteed any heterosexual by the U.S. Constitution.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with loss of rights or inequality, under the laws of our country.

An utterly, utterly false statement. Demonstrably false, legally false, just plain false.

JollyRoger · #86 08-05-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

In a perfect would, the voters would fix this; in the real would the SC is going to have to establish a clear precedent to keep states from banning gay marriage. Hopefully, they will issue a broad enough decision to apply to all the states and they won't have to go through this exercise a dozen times.

Broad? How about this:

Quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-14th Amendment

The only thing that have to rule is that that statement is true.

JollyRoger · #87 08-05-2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Only if they are trying to create law, through their decisions, that does not exist.

Create law? Read the post above. Tell us all what's been "created".

JollyRoger · #88 08-05-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Except for the polyamourists, the poligamists, brothers, sisters, parents and children, uncles, aunts and cousins! If all people have the individual right to marry why can't adult brother and an adult sister? Or a father and an adult daughter? Why can't two adult brothes? Wouldn't their individual rights be denied unconstitutionaly? If the right is individual how can the rights of individual poligamists to be married be denied?

Or do only "gay" individuals have that right, how about three gay brothers getting married, under what circumstance could any one of their individual right to marry be constitutionally denied?

Because the state has a compelling interest in preventing those kinds of marriages, because they lead to unfair burdens on the taxpayers. Stupid red herring crap. Relatives marrying leads to genetically deformed off spring that the taxpayers have to support. A man with ten wives can have a hundred children that the state ends up supporting. All this crap has been litigated, and where the state can show a reason to regulate these kinds of marriages, it is granted the right to do so. Now, tell us all what the compelling interest the state has in regulating homosexual marriage ? So some guy named Billy Bob won't be outraged? Give us one good reason. Just one.

#89 08-05-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Broad? How about this:

The only thing that have to rule is that that statement is true.

It's the "without due process of law" part that allows states to take away liberties; then you need the court system to smack down the states when they cross the line.

JollyRoger · #90 08-05-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Not to disparage the author or this thread in any way, however after I determined he couldn't answer post #5, nor his 'equality' premise - I realized the thread was just a poorly worded rush-job - based on feelings/emotion, not fact nor higher law, which seemingly reflects most if not all of liberalism.

You are arguing fact and higher law? Where ?