Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
Because you comments are totally irrelevant to the issue. You just keep parroting the same old stuff as if it is the only thought you have.
old lawyer maxim:
if the case law is not on your side then dazzle them with BS.
The saying is basically stating that you are more to fear from a lawyer who has a single page case directly on point then from the lawyer who has books and books (do they even use books any more?) with bookmarks of “analogous” cases.
seems like these california BS artists are trying to dazzle with manure for the USSC appeal and to be SOMETHING for other cases in other states.
Funny you should ask.
Also, partly from studying human anatomy, patho-physiology, and abnormal path-physiology among other courses in nursing and it’s quite apparent to me that homosexuality is abnormal. I think it should be viewed as any other disease of the mind or body and treated with hormone therapy and/or psychiatry. I would NOT advocate or favor forced treatment. What I object to is society being forced to accept it as natural and normal.
Is ‘interesting’ your favorite word or something? Sheesh.
OK. We’re both on the same track, coming at different perspectives.
How are they irrelevant to the issue? Are you able to articulate your reasons for thinking they’re irrelevant?
We are a republic with a written contract between the citizens and government called the US Constitution. The majority can vote to do as it pleases so long as it doesn’t violate the contract. So, yes, I believe in the rule of law that states a handful of judges must not overturn centuries of previous rulings for social causes, no matter how worthy those causes may be.
It was wrong to prevent interracial couples from marrying. In fact, the court may have even produced a moral outcome when it overturned laws against interracial marriage. However, a few successes do not justify the subversion of our system of government.
What you have now are an entire class of judges who think they need to be the arbiters of social justice. They think they not only have the right to fix wrongs, they think it’s their obligation to correct what they think are errors in the law. In other words, they are super legislators.
On the other hand, you have justices like Scalia, who follow the law as it stands—EVEN when they disagree with it. That may not be appealing to you, but Scalia is doing far, far more to protect individual liberty than those justices who do as they please.
So, yes, the people should be the ones to change the law. That includes laws against interracial marriage. Because if you allow judges to make it up as they see fit, there is absolutely nothing they cannot do! It makes a mockery of all law, and if you aren’t naturally repulsed by this, there is nothing whatsoever traditionalist about you.
It’s one of my favorites, yes.
San Franfreako is going to rush to issue licenses before november so there can be a “grandfathering” of windowhomosexual based marriages cases.
Don’t forget folks, common law marriages were derecognized in many states that abandoned common law marriage.
You’re consistent, that’s admirable.
It would be a very different country if the legality of interracial marriage had been left up to a vote.
Uh, No. That wasn't my point at all. What you said must be a projection of your prejudices.
Heh, what a funny response.
Even if there is a homo gene, it is still abnormal pathology. There is a gene for Parkinson’s disease too. People don’t choose to have Parkinson’s disease. But we treat it and we recognize it as a disease. We try to help people with it the best we can but we don’t say that it is natural and normal to have Parkinson’s because it’s not.
Yup, reality served up to you nicely.
Why do you think it says “Nothing at all”?
The answer to that is self evident. That it isn't evident to you is your problem but I'll do my best to paint you a bright picture.
Until the point interracial marriage was legalized, and even long after, people made exactly the same arguments you’re making.
False. My argument is that denying a man and a woman the a marriage license was wrong because marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman in America. Utah was denied access to the union until they made polygamy unlawful.
I think that alone says something, most likely different things to different people.
No it says absolutely nothing. There is nothing in either US or California law that recognizes marriage between the same sexes. Ever. This isn't really hard. One woman + one man /= one man + one man.
Can you explain why you think it’s a strawman argument?
Certainly, the two do not equate. See the math above.
How, do you imagine, same-sex marriage might “take more of” your money?
I didn't say it would. I said that non traditional families take money out of my pocket, specifically those without fathers. Do you deny this is so?
California could, if they like, through the democratic process give homosexual couples all the rights and privileges of traditional married couples. Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to change the meaning of marriage in my opinion but nothing in the law would stop them from doing that if they so please. But they didn't please, 4 egomanical judges did.
Too many Mark Foleys, Larry Craigs, and Dick Cheney’s in the GOP to do the right thing politically,....
Dick Cheney is a GOD SEND....what`s your problem? DC is one of my heroe`s after GW that is
Whatever.
I wouldn’t deny that, either. But I honestly didn’t see one of them tell ‘the other side’ to “shut the xxxx up and tell your xxxx to someone who cares or I’ll shut you up.”
Pretty scary stuff.
My law school dean argued before the CA Supreme Ct on this matter and my family law prof is involved as well. Go read DOMA and you will see that it allows a state that does not recognize gay marriage to deny full faith and credit to a gay couple who tries to move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage.
If a gay couple from MA or CA move to VA, then under DOMA VA does not have to recognize that gay union and therefore does not have to give it full faith and credit.
Until interracial marriage was legalized, marriage was not defined as “one man and one woman” of different races. It was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. Opponents of interracial marriage often said that’s how it had “always been.” The definition of marriage was changed when the law was changed. It took quite a long time for many people to accept that. Some still haven’t.
Interracial marriage was legalized in just the same way you describe for gay marriage. Though the public disapproved (90% against interracial marriage in 1948, when it was legalized by California), judges determined it was, in fact, illegal to deny interracial couples the right to marry. Very much like the determination today regarding gay couples.
Do you still not see the similarities?
If you’re not saying gay couples would cost you more money, what difference does it make if you think single parents cost you more money? That connection is definitely not clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.