jcow79 wrote:Couldn't it be argued that although the legal definition of marriage in California has been narrowed to a man and a woman as established by Prop 8, that denying marriages to same sex couples STILL amounts to discrimination as the courts had previously stated? Therefore marriage licenses can no longer be granted to ANY couples in California as it now would be discriminatory?
Can't they just define marriage into two category, namely homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriage? Fine, a heterosexual marriage is between a man and a woman, a homosexual marriage is between a couple of the same gender.
Although some people are defending prop 8 saying that it is the will of the majority, and in a democracy, the majority has a right to decide what rights can be given, and what rights should be denied.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
And a representative republic is designed to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority. Will of the people be damned.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
jcow79 wrote:Couldn't it be argued that although the legal definition of marriage in California has been narrowed to a man and a woman as established by Prop 8, that denying marriages to same sex couples STILL amounts to discrimination as the courts had previously stated? Therefore marriage licenses can no longer be granted to ANY couples in California as it now would be discriminatory?
Can't they just define marriage into two category, namely homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriage? Fine, a heterosexual marriage is between a man and a woman, a homosexual marriage is between a couple of the same gender.
Although some people are defending prop 8 saying that it is the will of the majority, and in a democracy, the majority has a right to decide what rights can be given, and what rights should be denied.
... That is what homosexuals are going for. After all, they already have the right to heterosexual marriage.
jcow79 wrote:Couldn't it be argued that although the legal definition of marriage in California has been narrowed to a man and a woman as established by Prop 8, that denying marriages to same sex couples STILL amounts to discrimination as the courts had previously stated? Therefore marriage licenses can no longer be granted to ANY couples in California as it now would be discriminatory?
Can't they just define marriage into two category, namely homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriage? Fine, a heterosexual marriage is between a man and a woman, a homosexual marriage is between a couple of the same gender.
Although some people are defending prop 8 saying that it is the will of the majority, and in a democracy, the majority has a right to decide what rights can be given, and what rights should be denied.
... That is what homosexuals are going for. After all, they already have the right to heterosexual marriage.
I'm talking about the supreme court accepting this view in regards to defining marriage. I mean the word marriage doesn't even define what kind of sexual preferences the couple has.
By the way, may I ask how is the issue of homosexuality tackled in schools down there? Did teachers taught students that there isn't anything wrong with homosexuality and homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
No ray, that would be teaching tolerance and tolerance is a bad word in parts of the US.
Sadly,too many people think still that homosexuality is a lifestyle because kids are not taught about anything in regards to homosexuality. Hence, making it easy for conservative to play up on that misconception.
Is there any nation where homosexuality is taught in schools?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
No ray, that would be teaching tolerance and tolerance is a bad word in parts of the US.
Sadly,too many people think still that homosexuality is a lifestyle because kids are not taught about anything in regards to homosexuality. Hence, making it easy for conservative to play up on that misconception.
Is there any nation where homosexuality is taught in schools?
You can't teach homosexuality any more than you can teach heterosexuality. Neither are suitable for school subjects. The word you are looking for is tolerance. And that one is taught in Germany.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
jcow79 wrote:Couldn't it be argued that although the legal definition of marriage in California has been narrowed to a man and a woman as established by Prop 8, that denying marriages to same sex couples STILL amounts to discrimination as the courts had previously stated? Therefore marriage licenses can no longer be granted to ANY couples in California as it now would be discriminatory?
What the court seemed to indicate is that the state civil union legislation is sufficient to pre-empt that so long as it contains literally every protection of marriage except for the word.
Which still flies flat in the face of Separate But Equal.
Which is a matter of federal equal protection since it sits above the California Constitution. The problem, and the principal objection to proceeding with a federal lawsuit at this point, is that the current makeup of the court (with or without Sotomayor) is likely as not to find that upholding the "traditional definition of marriage" qualifies as a legitimate state purpose and thus while there is an equal protection violation it is not a breach that exceeds the viable limits of what the government may do.
I completely disagree with that judgement but I am worried that the current court would rule that way.
As an aside having read more into the current federal lawsuit I'm actually somewhat more hopeful becaue they are going after Prop 8 not just as an Equal Protection violation but also pointing out that the courts have previously held that actiosn taken specifically to punish a category of people are presumed to be an equal protection violation which has no legitimate purpose regardless of the scope of the violation. In other words because Prop 8 was fueled by the near explicit desire to punish homosexuals it means that any legitimate government intrest the Prop may have had is ignored due to the intent of the action.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
