Liberals are again in an uproar that the President today (through Axlerod) has reiterated that even after the California ruling, he is still opposed to gay marriage.

isadore;442489 wrote:The Supreme Court has applied the 14th Amendment as it was meant to be applied by its authors to prevent state abuse of their citizens. Marriage according to the Supreme Court is a “basic right.” If we give equal protection under our laws to all Americans that right should be available to all consenting adults.
It is truly fascinating to see how states righters continue to want a very constricted application of the 14th Amendment to return to their good old days of segregation. Marriage is not mentioned so in your constricted view Jmog the states are quite justified in passing laws that outlaw interracial marriage. And education is not mentioned so it is all right to resegregate the schools. Out with Brown v Education.
Luckily the courts have not allowed that bigoted, states rights view to continue to blight our nation.

You are right, the SCOTUS has determined that marriage is a right, but you are adding in your own interpretation of it being a "right between any two consenting adults".

The SCOTUS has NEVER said that.

a right belonging to all consenting adult couples
that is my belief and the interpretation applied by some courts. Hopefully in the near future by the Supremes.

isadore;442513 wrote:a right belonging to all consenting adult couples
that is my belief and the interpretation applied by some courts. Hopefully in the near future by the Supremes.

In your first post you implied that the SCOTUS said a right of marriage for any 2 consenting adults. You added your own opinion into what their actual ruling was. Now that I called you on it you admit it was your opinion.

Funny to say the least.

1. I did not say the Supreme Court said that it was between any consenting adult couple.
2. Lets go for what you have said on this thread
a. Marriage not a basic right
b. implied that the federal government can not apply the 14th Amendment to institutions or laws directly mentioned in the amendment or in the Constitution.

jmog;442319 wrote:Isadore, you are losing, and losing fast.

The 14th Amendment (at least the section that has to do with this discussion).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. "

Please show me where this amendment guarantees gay marriage as a right?

The judge didn't characterize gay marriage as a basic right because the rational basis test was applied and suggested that prop 8 is not "reasonably related" to any "legitimate state interest" and is therefore unconstitutional.

BoatShoes;442537 wrote:The judge didn't characterize gay marriage as a basic right because the rational basis test was applied and suggested that prop 8 is not "reasonably related" to any "legitimate state interest" and is therefore unconstitutional.

If that's the case, then every state statute relating to gay marriage should be overturned...whether for or against.

isadore - couple things:
1. I am not a lawyer and have no idea about the intracacies of the Loving decision in Virginia. I will not go home and read Supreme Court case studies. If you like it, go for it. If you are an attorney, or in the profession, congrats. If that makes your points more believable and rational than an average American that has read the Constitution, then so be it. You win.
2. Why is everything about race? I've read numerous posts of yours and you always inject it either directly or by reference.
3. I'm going to agree with you that slaves were indeed living under tyranny. See, there is something we can agree on. I would further argue that activist judges that disregard the will and vote of the people (in AZ and CA) make themselves tyrants by definition.

isadore;442530 wrote:1. I did not say the Supreme Court said that it was between any consenting adult couple.
2. Lets go for what you have said on this thread
a. Marriage not a basic right
b. implied that the federal government can not apply the 14th Amendment to institutions or laws directly mentioned in the amendment or in the Constitution.

Maybe I'm wrong, I am willing to be wrong, but I do not believe I have ever said that marriage is not a basic right. I also did not say anything about the 14th Amendment other than quoting it and showing how what you were saying about it was incorrect.

BGFalcons82;442616 wrote:isadore - couple things:
1. I am not a lawyer and have no idea about the intracacies of the Loving decision in Virginia. I will not go home and read Supreme Court case studies. If you like it, go for it. If you are an attorney, or in the profession, congrats. If that makes your points more believable and rational than an average American that has read the Constitution, then so be it. You win.
2. Why is everything about race? I've read numerous posts of yours and you always inject it either directly or by reference.
3. I'm going to agree with you that slaves were indeed living under tyranny. See, there is something we can agree on. I would further argue that activist judges that disregard the will and vote of the people (in AZ and CA) make themselves tyrants by definition.

You are ok BG. And damn funny. “Isadore - a couple of thing” 1. 2. 3.
Well I am pretty ditzy myself.

I am not a lawyer, not even close, but
Here is the Loving decision if you would like to look it over.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Everything with me is not race, truly, but
1. Although some others don’t I find the situations analogous between inter racial couples being denied the basic right of marriage and gay couples. So I use that often in my arguments for granting gays that right.
2. I find the states rights argument reprehensible and consider its history in suppressing blacks relevant whenever states rights is brought up in a discussion.
3. You definitely have a right to disagree with those judges decisions. But I believe that, especially in the California decision, People should not lose a basic right based on majority vote. An important function of the courts is to protect those rights for the unpopular minority. If the Court had reflected public opinion in the Loving case, they would have voted to keep the Virginia law against interracial marriage. In 1967 most Americans were against them. It was not until 1991 that most Americans accepted them.

The federal government has turned marriage into a basis rights issue by passing laws regarding such things as income tax that affect married people. As long as married people receive benefits that unmarried people (gay or straight) do not, this argument will keep raging.

As a gay man, I would be perfectly satisfied if all states did what the state of Washington recently did-- pass an everything but "marriage" law that gives gay and unmarried straight couples full legal rights. In places like WA, gay couples have all the state's rights of marriage but it is not called marriage. That was the compromise we had to give in order to get the law passed. And I might add, that the law was passed through an election of the voters, not just a decree from the legislature or a ruling from a court.

This matter will ultimately be brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think today's court would reject gay marriage 5-4. If the makeup of the court changes in the next year or so, we may have the chance to win this thing.

jmog wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, I am willing to be wrong, but I do not believe I have ever said that marriage is not a basic right. I also did not say anything about the 14th Amendment other than quoting it and showing how what you were saying about it was incorrect.

It is quite possible that I am wrong about your opinion. BG, MS and I were having a discussion. BG supported by MS had made the argument that marriage since it was not mentioned in the Constitution was not a basic right.
You came in with this comment

jmog wrote:Isadore, you are losing, and losing fast.

The 14th Amendment (at least the section that has to do with this discussion).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. "

Please show me where this amendment guarantees gay marriage as a right?

Seeming to support and endorse BG and MS.
I think my basic argument still holds whatever you meant. The amendment does not say anything about marriage gay or otherwise neither does the rest of the Constitution. But that did not stop the court from rightfully using the due process and equal protection clauses to allow interracial marriage, also not mentioned, based on marriage being a basic right. Even though Virginia and states righters disagreed. The fact that education was not mentioned in the Amendment or in the rest of Constitution did not stop the Court in the Brown decision from saying segregated schools were unconstitutional. Even though Topeka and states righters disagreed.

fish82;442612 wrote:If that's the case, then every state statute relating to gay marriage should be overturned...whether for or against.

It doesn't seem to me that that will follow. The lawyer's for California failed to prove that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing gays to be married in the judge's mind. If a state just isn't preventing a free action of its citizens by not disallowing something like gay marriage the state doesn't need to have a legitimate interest for not making a certain preventing a certain type of action.

BoatShoes;442786 wrote:It doesn't seem to me that that will follow. The lawyer's for California failed to prove that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing gays to be married in the judge's mind. If a state just isn't preventing a free action of its citizens by not disallowing something like gay marriage the state doesn't need to have a legitimate interest for not making a certain preventing a certain type of action.

But what's the "legitimate interest" for allowing it?

Also, the excerpts from his decision that I've read had more to do with his anti-religion/morality views than state's rights. IMO, his agenda was pretty transparent.

fish82;442835 wrote:But what's the "legitimate interest" for allowing it?

Also, the excerpts from his decision that I've read had more to do with his anti-religion/morality views than state's rights. IMO, his agenda was pretty transparent.

The agenda of the people who oppose us is equally transparent. I don't see you complaining about that.

FairwoodKing;443997 wrote:The agenda of the people who oppose us is equally transparent. I don't see you complaining about that.

I could care less about gay marriage one way or the other. In fact if you were to pin me down, I'm more for it than against it. The issue here is that the "people who oppose you" voted that way, and state's rights were overturned by a judge with a potential agenda.

fish82;444052 wrote:I could care less about gay marriage one way or the other. In fact if you were to pin me down, I'm more for it than against it. The issue here is that the "people who oppose you" voted that way, and state's rights were overturned by a judge with a potential agenda.

The people who voted it down in California were heavily influenced by the Mormon Church who did everything in their power to make us look bad. It was not a fair fight.

I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that getting the blacks out to vote for Obama hurt the gay marriage proposal immensely. They voted something like 70% against it or something to that nature.

iclfan2;444066 wrote:I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that getting the blacks out to vote for Obama hurt the gay marriage proposal immensely. They voted something like 70% against it or something to that nature.

Yes, that is likely the case. Blacks have always thought that they were the only people discriminated against in this world and they have very little sympathy for anyone else. Black gays have a particularly difficult time.

I should also point out that the gay world is very supportive of black causes.

fish82;442835 wrote:But what's the "legitimate interest" for allowing it?

Also, the excerpts from his decision that I've read had more to do with his anti-religion/morality views than state's rights. IMO, his agenda was pretty transparent.

You don't have to prove there is a "legitimate interest" for something to not be banned.

When this ultimately reaches the Supreme Court, it will be decided according to agenda. The liberals will vote for gay marriage and the conservatives will vote against it. I don't even know why they are bothering to hold a trial.

The decision will go against gays. But this will not be the end of the issue. Eventually the government will give in and gay marriage will be allowed throughout the country. I just regret that I will not be alive to see it.

FairwoodKing;444054 wrote:The people who voted it down in California were heavily influenced by the Mormon Church who did everything in their power to make us look bad. It was not a fair fight.

Come on, really?

jmog;446041 wrote:Come on, really?

Yes, really. Yes, the church that has promoted multiple wives opposes gay marriage. Yes, one of the craziest churches in the world successfully blocked gay marriage in California. Without their influence, the vote might have gone the other way.

The church did not "block gay marriage. The Mormon Church got their message out to the voting public regarding their views. Should they have any less right to do so than the gay and lesbian community?

What makes promoting multiple wives crazy as a societal construct? I ask this question with a genuine interest in what the response might be.

Gays and lesbians are not trying to take rights away from the Mormon Church or any other organization. This is not a zero-sum game. It is not the case that if we win, you lose. If we win, no one else loses. Churches would still be free to refuse gay marriages if they want to. This is a matter of the government recognizing same-sex marriage so that gay couples can enjoy the same rights that straight people enjoy.