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

davidmash · #1 08-08-2010, 11:02 AM

I understand the "why". I am just trying to see where the logic is. So far, no one here has provided a logical or legal based argument why gays should be deprived of equal rights in regard to marriage. All the arguments presented thus far, have been shot full of holes so that they hold no water.

aklim · #2 08-08-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I understand the "why". I am just trying to see where the logic is. So far, no one here has provided a logical or legal based argument why gays should be deprived of equal rights in regard to marriage. All the arguments presented thus far, have been shot full of holes so that they hold no water.

The only possible reason is that we need more offspring but even that is falling flat on it's face for 2 reasons. First, we DON'T. Second, there is artificial insemination.

davidmash · #3 08-08-2010, 12:12 PM

And third, there is no indication that people would stop having children were the rules of marriage changed.

AdvisorGuy · #4 08-08-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

And third, there is no indication that people would stop having children were the rules of marriage changed.

Exactly.. Maybe "6,000 years ago", procreation was deemed necessary for population growth, considering reaching 25 years of age was practically a miracle. Gay marriage isn't going to suddenly increase the number of gays on the planet. The numbers will be the same, only some will be "married." Heterosexuals seem to be doing a bang up job at "procreation" and increasing the population. I doubt that will change either..

retmil46 · #5 08-08-2010, 10:07 PM

Personally, it's none of my business who marries who, whether they call it a marriage or a civil union, who gets what tax breaks, what they do in the bedroom, etc, etc. And the reverse should also apply.

Problem is, there are over-zealous noisemakers on BOTH sides of this issue that are preventing any kind of logical and fair solution.

Case in point to illustrate Newton's law of "equal and opposite reactions" -

I know a person that used to work for a major bank. Several years ago, the bank decided that to appear more "homo-friendly" as a business and forstall any future troubles over possible accusation of discrimination, they were going to institute what could be termed an "homosexual affirmative action" policy - all other things being equal, preference would be given in all hiring and promotion decisions to those that told the company they were homosexual, over those that had listed no preference, said they were heterosexual, or told the bank it was none of their bloody business.

The above person said the bank called them all into meetings by department to explain the new hiring and promotion policy. Their department head told them that not only would the bank give preference to homosexuals in hiring and promotion - essentially preferential treatment based solely on sexual orientation - but also advised the heterosexual employees that from then on, if they wanted to have a decent chance of getting a raise or promotion, they should change their personal info listed with the bank and identify themselves as homosexual even though they weren't. Anyone who had a hard spot with the new policy for whatever reason was advised to seek employment elsewhere.

The person I mentioned above had no stomach for this, and put in for early retirement.

IMHO, that's the polar opposite of, and equally as flawed as, "don't ask don't tell". In the above instance, homosexuals were given preferential treatment. In the latter, heterosexuals are given preferential treatment. And both in my view are equally wrong - what a person does in the bedroom and who they live with shouldn't have any bearing on who gets hired or fired.

So, now you have the instance where the zealots on one side of the argument persuades a major company to give preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. End result is blowback from the opposite extreme - now the zealots on the other side will scream at every opportunity that all the talk about "equal rights" is just a smokescreen for wanting preferential treatment codified into law.

And the rest of us are left sitting in the crossfire.

MTUpower · #6 08-08-2010, 10:34 PM

Society is better off when offspring have a family- and that means a mother and a father who stick together and raise the offspring to become productive, educated, responsible adults. Since gays cannot have offspring they should not be allowed to have the advantages that those who "sacrifice" and do marry and stick together and have offspring is the thinking and view for most.
This is changed by allowing adoption by gays who otherwise fit the criteria for responsible adults wanting offspring.
As an adopted child myself I'm glad I was not raised by a gay couple, but I'd have rather been raised by a gay couple than live in foster homes. I could care less if a person is gay, straight or bi as an adult. I rather like gays in that they seem to have a personality trait that appeals to me, and I've been mistaken by straight folks as gay many times. I think if I was raised by a gay couple the mannerisms and habits that most can detect with "gaydar" would have been passed/taught to me- and in the current world we live in it would be a disadvantage. Again, I have no desire to have be anything but straight, but do not care what anyone does sexually with willing partners.
I'm not sure where this leads me to, but I think "marriage" should be for heterosexual couples. Let gays have civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage but do not call it marriage. Married couples without kids should not have the benefits as those married with offspring IMHO.

#7 08-09-2010, 01:57 AM

Assuming your friend has his story straight (which seems very unlikely), this employer was badly in need of legal advice. The premise that any american company would even consider an employment policy based on stated sexual preference is very hard to believe (they certainly wouldn't have used a term like "SELF-ADMITTED homosexuals" in the last 30 years).

retmil46 · #8 08-09-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Assuming your friend has his story straight (which seems very unlikely), this employer was badly in need of legal advice. The premise that any american company would even consider an employment policy based on stated sexual preference is very hard to believe (they certainly wouldn't have used a term like "SELF-ADMITTED homosexuals" in the last 30 years).

Well, he did describe upper management as I quoted before, as "a bunch of half-baked morons that sooner or later will drive the company into bankruptcy". He was at least spot on in the bankruptcy prediction.

And as he also noted, this was the last in a rather lengthy line of questionable business and personnel decisions at that firm that bordered on sheer stupidity. He himself agreed with your call, that the promotion policy as they proposed it would be a legal firestorm if they even dreamed of enacting it - he decided to give up his VP position and take early retirement, and get out of there before the crap hit the fan.

From my friend's description, this firm would be a prime example of one of the corollarys to Murphy's Law - "Everyone is promoted to their own level of incompetence". Even at my last job, working in a Freightliner truck plant, I lost count of how many nonsensical projects were undertaken that everyone involved knew was an absolute crock, because some manager or VP had this bright idea for a pet project they thought was going to earn them major brownie points with the big boys back in Portland or over in Stuttgart, and no one was willing to risk losing their job by telling the emperor he had no clothes.

davidmash · #9 08-12-2010, 11:59 PM

Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage.

Prop 8 ban set to end

About bloody time.

Billybob · #10 08-16-2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage.

Prop 8 ban set to end

About bloody time.

Premature Nuptulator!

Not so fast boys and boys or girls and girls or whatever and whatever!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.
"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."
Attorneys for sponsors of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.
"I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it's gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed," said Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.
"Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it's better to have this kind of decision," he said.
Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.
A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and further delay a final outcome.
County clerks throughout the state had been preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008. The measure amended the California Constitution to overrule a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex unions earlier that year.
"I'm sad, but I'm also glad that I didn't pay the $100 to reserve an appointment at the clerk's office," said Thea Lavin, 31, of San Francisco, who had planned to wed her partner, Jess Gabbert, 30, if the stay were denied. "This has happened so many times before where we take two steps forward, one step back."
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8 beginning late Wednesday afternoon after ruling Aug. 4 that the ban violated the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
The ban's backers appealed that ruling and also asked the 9th Circuit to block same-sex weddings in the meantime. They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that gay marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage.
Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings this week, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
In a two-page order granting the stay, the appeals court panel did not indicate why it was keeping Proposition 8 in effect until it could consider the appeal of Walker's verdict.
But it ordered Proposition 8 sponsors to address in their opening brief due Sept. 17 whether they even have the legal right to try to have the trial judge's ruling overturned. Both California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, the original defendants in the case, have said they support same-sex marriage and refused to defend Proposition 8 in court.
Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

davidmash · #11 08-16-2010, 11:52 PM

I saw that. Very disappointing but at least the court set an expedited time table for the the case. With any luck the the circuit will uphold the decision by Jan and we can move on to the SCOTUS.

MTI · #12 08-17-2010, 12:12 AM

It ain't over till it's over

MTI · #13 08-17-2010, 08:44 PM

The briefs on the issue of standing may be interesting; the original action was brought against the State of California, so unless the state files the appeal, or allows the pro-Prop 8 folks to appear as intervenors . . . they might not be the proper parties to file any appeal to the 9th Cir.

davidmash · #14 08-18-2010, 01:00 AM

I love the fact that neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown are willing to represent Prop 8.

I'm read that the opponents of Prop 8 are hoping that standing is not granted to the proponents of Prop 8. If standing is not granted, the case dies, marriage is allowed in CA and could spread to the rest of the country and they avoid the risk of loosing at the SCOUS.

Billybob · #15 08-18-2010, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I love the fact that neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown are willing to represent Prop 8.

I'm read that the opponents of Prop 8 are hoping that standing is not granted to the proponents of Prop 8. If standing is not granted, the case dies, marriage is allowed in CA and could spread to the rest of the country and they avoid the risk of loosing at the SCOUS.

Both will be gone come January!