Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Mordecai]

I personally think you nave to have something stronger to argue more than "We have always done it this way"

They can always cite the Supreme Court's prior rulings that clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman (for those with the reading comprehension to recognize it, at least). They can also point out that the people's authority is higher than the legislature. In the end, we have a MUCH stronger case. I think it's the left that is frightened of how the Supreme Court will rule.

[california boy]

They can always cite the Supreme Court's prior rulings that clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman (for those with the reading comprehension to recognize it, at least). They can also point out that the people's authority is higher than the legislature. In the end, we have a MUCH stronger case. I think it's the left that is frightened of how the Supreme Court will rule.

Now that would be a great argument. What ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that marriage is only between a man and a woman? And why the heck didn't the prop 8 lawyers use this ruling to support their case?

The rest of your assumption is just silly. Why would the "left" start a lawsuit that they reasonably know will end up in the Supreme Court if they are frightened on how the Supreme Court will rule? And why would the prop 8 lawyers try to recluse judge Walker if they feel they have a strong case to present to the Supreme Court. Wouldn't they want that case to proceed as quickly as possible?

[ozpoof]

If a straight judge said the denial of civil rights to gay couples was to be overturned, would that be ok then?

[Mordecai]

What ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

Skinner v. Oklahoma is pretty clear on why marriage is a right, and argues based on the premise that it is between a man and a woman.

And why the heck didn't the prop 8 lawyers use this ruling to support their case?

Probably because Walker threw out everything they tried to present, with no legal precedent for doing so.

The rest of your assumption is just silly. Why would the "left" start a lawsuit that they reasonably know will end up in the Supreme Court if they are frightened on how the Supreme Court will rule?

They're hoping we'll never be able to bring it before the Supreme Court, I suspect. I don't think they want to bring it to the Supreme Court, because it's not liberal enough.

[Daniel2]

They're hoping we'll never be able to bring it before the Supreme Court, I suspect. I don't think they want to bring it to the Supreme Court, because it's not liberal enough.

Mordecai,

Upon what are you basing your suspicion that those of us who support civil marriage equality "are hoping [this case will] never [be brought] before the Supreme Court"?

Everything I hear from both LGBT individuals and LGBT organizations is actually just the opposite of what you suspect. We most definitely are pushing for the case to go to the Supreme Court, because most consider the question of civil marriage equality to actually be a very conservative issue that the court is likely to universally mandate across all 50 states.

In fact, Equality California recently sent out a massive email poll to all it's members and supporters to ascertain whether or not there was any consensus as to whether or not we should seek to put the issue back on the ballot (now that polls are indicating a wide margin of support in favor of same-sex marriage in the wake of all that's happened since 2008), OR if the consensus is to wait till the current case wends its way to the Supreme Court.

The results of Equality Califorina's polling overwhelmingly showed that, despite the groundswell of support and the fact that we'd likely win at the ballot box, we should "stay the course" and simply let the Supreme Court make a universally-binding decision. Our position consistently has been that it's inappropriate for the majority to vote on the civil rights of minorities. Despite having numbers that show we'd now win in California, the consensus remains that individual rights should NOT be subject to popular votes.

I'm fully confident and comfortable that, when the SCOTUS thoroughly examines the issue (which it likely will, within the very near future), the majority (and possibly unanimously) will uphold marriage equality for both straight and gay couples.

Daniel2

[Analytics]

Skinner v. Oklahoma is pretty clear on why marriage is a right, and argues based on the premise that it is between a man and a woman.

Skinner v. Oklahoma was a case in 1942 regarding whether or not it was Constitutional to use sterilization as a criminal punishment. It has nothing to do with marriage.

It does have one sentence that uses the word marriage: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

[Zeta-Flux]

From what I have read on the subject of reclusion, courts have ruled over and over again about this kind of issue, and almost always have stated that it is reasonable that a judge can rule effectively even when there may be a possibility that he in some way might be affected. To make this an exception to that long history of rulings seems unlikely.

And I don't think the Prop. 8 proponents would disagree. I think what they would point out is that there is a difference between being affected by a ruling in some abstract way, and having a personal reason for wanting a certain outcome. In particular, while everyone is affected by constitutional issues, granting one's self a new legal right which you have a personal and present reason for wanting to exercise is different than merely being affected.

To be frank, if this does not present a basis for the layman to reasonably question the bias of a judge then I honestly don't know what would. This is of course assuming that the judge really wanted to exercise that right (which Ware questions, but apparently didn't think was central). Tell me-- if Walker today talked to a reporter and said that he has wanted to marry his partner for years, would you believe that Ware's ruling was the right one? Do you believe there is no difference between "a possibility that [a judge] in some way might be affected" by the outcome of the case and a judge granting himself a new legal right which he wants to use?

I guess I also feel the ruling that Judge Walker made was pretty strong with lots of legal precedence backing up his logical conclusion. Few people feel the prop 8 lawyers had much of a case to present on this issue. To try to recluse a judge seemed like a desperate attempt to throw out what was a pretty strong case against them. I am sure the prop 8 lawyers are not looking forward to continuing this case to the Supreme Court. What do they really have to argue that would make this case win in that high court? I personally think you nave to have something stronger to argue more than "We have always done it this way"

In my opinion and others, the whole recluse thing was just a stall tactic to delay the case even further.

I've mentioned this on this thread already, but let me try again. First, it is a little difficult to place blame on why this trial is taking so long, although the more liberal judge in the 9th circuit placed much of that blame on the plaintiffs. Second, you will note that the motion to vacate did not delay the case in any way. If it had succeeded, it isn't clear it would have delayed the case either (since we are still waiting on the standing issue). Third, I understand that you believe Walker's case was strong. Unfortunately, so do a number of other courts, who have used the ruling as a basis for theirs (and which Obama and Holder then failed to appeal to the Supreme Court). In particular, more courts are using strict scrutiny because of Walker's ruling, even though all appellate courts previously had applied lower scrutiny, etc..., etc... The real reason for the motion to vacate was the (small) hope that this could be rectified. To be frank, the proponents in Prop. 8 would be happy to have the Supreme Court hear the case tomorrow.

Personally I hope that the prop 8 lawyers do get standing in the case and it proceeds to the supreme court. It is time to put this divisive issue behind us.

Amen.

[krose]

If Homosexuality is not harmful to society - then why haven't the Gay Activists address the problematic result of increased AIDS contraction that comes about within the male population where Male-to-Male sex is practiced? The Center for Disease Control published their findings that of all new AIDS and HIV cases, majority of those cases are a direct result of Male-to-male sexual encounter. Many of these men participate in Male-to-male sexual encounters while they are married. The Gay activist say "if Heterosexuality is the way to go, why is there an increase of divorce among Heterosexual couples?" Well, the reality is that couples divorce because of Sexual infidelity, Financial reasons, or abuse.

Uh, right... Okay, now make your argument against lesbians.

It's amusing how this issue is almost always entirely about gay men and how yucky they make men (who are in charge of our religions and governments) feel. The Bible (written by men) is the same: heavily condemning male-male sex, while ignoring female homosexual activity. This certainly doesn't help the claim that it's not based on homophobia and male insecurity.

[Daniel2]

If Homosexuality is not harmful to society - then why haven't the Gay Activists address the problematic result of increased AIDS contraction that comes about within the male population where Male-to-Male sex is practiced?

SGW,

The question you pose in this snippet indicates, to me, that you aren't very familiar with many aspects of the LGBT community which you're emphatic to condemn. "Gay Activists" have spent vast amounts of volunteer hours, education, and research with the intent of "addressing the problematic result of increased AIDS contraction."

Increased HIV contraction occurs as a result of unprotected sex with infected partners--whether male-to-male OR male-to-female. It's widely understood, now, that AIDS affects unprotected, promiscuous populations (as well as a few other populations, such as those who may be exposed to already-infected blood or body fluids)--again, whether gay or straight. And many, many, many of us who are "Gay Activists" have worked tirelessly to educate and change minds, attitudes, and sexual practices--and many such programs have proven increasingly successful.

Encouraging stable relationships through social affirmation and legal recognition of monogamous marital relationships is, in my view, a definite step in the right direction in the many-faceted, ongoing efforts to address and curtail the spread of AIDS and other STDs.

Yet, Gay activists disagree with this because they say it is Homophobic and false argumentations. If they were honest with themselves, they realize that they are imposing their lifestyle by forcefeeding it to the majority. And it is done aggressively and militantly. This is not about committing homosexual acts, it is about forcing society to adopt something that is proven to be unhealthy and devestating to society.

You're correct: Homophobia doesn't cause the spread of AIDS--unprotected sex with an infected partner is one of many causes of the spread of AIDS.

Homophobia (in this case, I use the term to mean an attitude which would manifest itself as an aversion to promoting or educateing individuals about any kind of same-sex sexual behaviors or the promotion of sexually-responsible romantic relationships) most definitely could have a negative effect on curtailing efforts to promote safe sex and monogamy--which obviously would have an effect on attempts to slow and stop the spread of HIV.

Education and legal recognition about same-sex relationships doesn't "impose" or "force feed" homosexuality on heterosexuals any more than education and legal recognition about opposite-sex relationships imposes or force feeds heterosexuality on homosexuals. Indoctrination of heterosexuality is universally done FAR more militantly and aggressively--not to mention in subtle, cultural, and universal ways through movies, TV, stories, etc etc etc--than even the most emphatic and intentional efforts to promote homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality (which are far more limited in scope, and which will never be as widespread as heterosexuality).

I agree in one aspect, so long as some of your wording is changed: this isn't about committing homosexual (or heterosexual) acts--it is about forcing society to educate about and attempt to prevent something (unsafe and promiscuous sex--straight or gay) that is unhealthy and devastating to society.

Best,

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

Unfortunately, so do a number of other courts, who have used the ruling as a basis for theirs (and which Obama and Holder then failed to appeal to the Supreme Court). In particular, more courts are using strict scrutiny because of Walker's ruling,

do you have cases which have cited the Prop 8 ruling as the basis for apply strict scrutiny? I know there have a few cases here and there, in different circuits, concerning homosexual couples and discrimination, but I do not recall that any of them cited the Prop 8 case as the or a basis for applying strict scrutiny.

[california boy]

Skinner v. Oklahoma is pretty clear on why marriage is a right, and argues based on the premise that it is between a man and a woman.

I guess you messed up on citing case affirming that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Where do you get these ideas from? Are you just repeating something you have heard on some right wing blog? Or do you actually read the ruling? If you did read the ruling, what part did you think the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Cause I gotta tell you, if there is such a ruling, you guys should be referencing that ruling much more than comparing gay marriage to marrying dead people or pedophiles.

Probably because Walker threw out everything they tried to present, with no legal precedent for doing so.

Could you be more specific. What did Judge Walker throw out that was relevant to the prop 8 case? I have always been searching for the best LEGAL argument that supports prop 8. It sounds like you are the go to guy that has these answers when others have failed to offer them. This is way better than your lead is gold argument that you have been using. I would love to hear your legal arguments that might have merit.

They're hoping we'll never be able to bring it before the Supreme Court, I suspect. I don't think they want to bring it to the Supreme Court, because it's not liberal enough.

Now this is where you just loose all credibility. Ruling against prop 8 is just not liberal enough?? What do you think this case is about? What kind of ruling do you think gays want????

[Daniel2]

Ruling against prop 8 is just not liberal enough?? What do you think this case is about? What kind of ruling do you think gays want????

California Boy,

I understood Mordecai's comment to mean that he believes the marriage equality crowd fears that the Supreme Court of the United States isn't "liberal enough" to rule in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm not sure where he's getting that idea, given that all the opponents of Prop 8 that I've spoken with or read about would welcome a hearing on the issue by the SCOTUS ASAP.

Daniel2

[california boy]

And I don't think the Prop. 8 proponents would disagree. I think what they would point out is that there is a difference between being affected by a ruling in some abstract way, and having a personal reason for wanting a certain outcome. In particular, while everyone is affected by constitutional issues, granting one's self a new legal right which you have a personal and present reason for wanting to exercise is different than merely being affected.

To be frank, if this does not present a basis for the layman to reasonably question the bias of a judge then I honestly don't know what would. This is of course assuming that the judge really wanted to exercise that right (which Ware questions, but apparently didn't think was central). Tell me-- if Walker today talked to a reporter and said that he has wanted to marry his partner for years, would you believe that Ware's ruling was the right one? Do you believe there is no difference between "a possibility that [a judge] in some way might be affected" by the outcome of the case and a judge granting himself a new legal right which he wants to use?

I think you put your finger on the problem. I don't really think that a layman really understands the rules regarding reclusion. From what I read in Judge Ware's brief, the criteria is VERY narrow. Since few legal exprets really expected this motion to have even a slight chance kinda tells me that it was a long shot. Some even called the motion insulting to judges and that it might cause more ill will than actually do any good. I wish I could answer your question you pose, but I really don't know enough about the law regarding reclusion. There was something about if the judge MAY POSSIBLY benefit at the same level as a regular citizen would benefit, then that is not grounds for reclusion. If that is the legal criteria, then I would say Walker wanting to get married would not be enough. But I leave it to the lawyers to answer your question from a legal standpoint.

What does make me think that the ruling was in line with most legal thinking is that Judge Ware is not considered to be a liberal judge. No one is calling him the usual activist namecalling when they don't like a ruling. It seems to be a pretty noncontroversal ruling everywhere except the right wing blogs. Do you have any other sources that are not so right wing oriented bringing up this point?

I've mentioned this on this thread already, but let me try again. First, it is a little difficult to place blame on why this trial is taking so long, although the more liberal judge in the 9th circuit placed much of that blame on the plaintiffs. Second, you will note that the motion to vacate did not delay the case in any way. If it had succeeded, it isn't clear it would have delayed the case either (since we are still waiting on the standing issue). Third, I understand that you believe Walker's case was strong. Unfortunately, so do a number of other courts, who have used the ruling as a basis for theirs (and which Obama and Holder then failed to appeal to the Supreme Court). In particular, more courts are using strict scrutiny because of Walker's ruling, even though all appellate courts previously had applied lower scrutiny, etc..., etc... The real reason for the motion to vacate was the (small) hope that this could be rectified. To be frank, the proponents in Prop. 8 would be happy to have the Supreme Court hear the case tomorrow.

Amen.

You bring up a good point. You are right, This ruling probably will not hold up the case unless the appeal takes longer than September which is when we are expected to hear from the California Supreme court regarding standing. It would be a big disappointment to me and many others if they were denied standing. But quite frankly given the ruling concerning Arizona, it doesn't look too good for the prop 8 depfenders. Perhaps California law is sufficently different from Arizona law and they will let them have standing.

Just one question. If other courts are already citing judge Walkers ruling to decide on other cases, do you think that other judges feel Walkers ruling is pretty solid?

[Zeta-Flux]

I think you put your finger on the problem. I don't really think that a layman really understands the rules regarding reclusion. From what I read in Judge Ware's brief, the criteria is VERY narrow. Since few legal exprets really expected this motion to have even a slight chance kinda tells me that it was a long shot. Some even called the motion insulting to judges and that it might cause more ill will than actually do any good. I wish I could answer your question you pose, but I really don't know enough about the law regarding reclusion. There was something about if the judge MAY POSSIBLY benefit at the same level as a regular citizen would benefit, then that is not grounds for reclusion. If that is the legal criteria, then I would say Walker wanting to get married would not be enough. But I leave it to the lawyers to answer your question from a legal standpoint.

What does make me think that the ruling was in line with most legal thinking is that Judge Ware is not considered to be a liberal judge. No one is calling him the usual activist namecalling when they don't like a ruling. It seems to be a pretty noncontroversal ruling everywhere except the right wing blogs. Do you have any other sources that are not so right wing oriented bringing up this point?

The relevant law is found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html.

My impression of the (liberal) legal experts (at least the ones I read in the media) was that almost all of them misunderstood the proponents position. They would all say ridiculous things like "The proponents position would imply that women couldn't sit on cases involving abortion, or black people couldn't sit on cases dealing with race, or religious people couldn't sit on cases dealing with religion." Sometimes they would completely mischaracterize the argument, as the plaintiffs and Walker often did, by saying that it was about Walker's homosexuality. They failed to understand that it was about a judge granting himself a new legal right which he (probably/maybe?) wanted to use.

As for Ware's position: I think it would have been stronger if he had merely said something like "There is insufficient evidence that Walker wants to get married." Ware's ruling that Walker's desire for marriage is irrelevant seems to grossly miss the plain meaning of the law (and contradict what many (even liberal) experts I read did say). The law states: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Desire of a judge to get married when the current law prevents it causes me to (in my opinion) reasonably question impartiality.

Or, to put it another way-- Walker's decision was overbroad and instead of giving relief simply to the couple who filed originally he ruled that the law was unconstitutional throughout California. In essence (if not in fact) he made all homosexual couples who want to get married parties to the suite.

You bring up a good point. You are right, This ruling probably will not hold up the case unless the appeal takes longer than September which is when we are expected to hear from the California Supreme court regarding standing. It would be a big disappointment to me and many others if they were denied standing. But quite frankly given the ruling concerning Arizona, it doesn't look too good for the prop 8 depfenders. Perhaps California law is sufficently different from Arizona law and they will let them have standing.

Just one question. If other courts are already citing judge Walkers ruling to decide on other cases, do you think that other judges feel Walkers ruling is pretty solid?

Of course some other judges do. That doesn't say much though does it? For example, the supreme court often votes 5-4 on these types of issues.

[Mordecai]

...given that all the opponents of Prop 8 that I've spoken with or read about would welcome a hearing on the issue by the SCOTUS ASAP...

I'm sure they're anxious to have SCOTUS re-write the law. However, SCOTUS is most likely not liberal enough to re-write the law in order to impose a rash social experiment on society. Not only does it represent interfering with free speech, by muddling the language, it represents a law that involves established religion in the U.S. It oppresses religious culture and belief, in fact, by distorting the language in favor of an obviously false dogma. So very unconstitutional, and not only that, for the Federal gov't to interfere with marriage would strongly go against precedent. (I'm aware that in Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS ruled against arresting people for living together as husband and wife; but obviously, gay people are allowed to live together all they want).

[frankenstein]

Zeta-Flux, on 16 June 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

Unfortunately, so do a number of other courts, who have used the ruling as a basis for theirs (and which Obama and Holder then failed to appeal to the Supreme Court). In particular, more courts are using strict scrutiny because of Walker's ruling,

--------------

do you have cases which have cited the Prop 8 ruling as the basis for apply strict scrutiny? I know there have a few cases here and there, in different circuits, concerning homosexual couples and discrimination, but I do not recall that any of them cited the Prop 8 case as the or a basis for applying strict scrutiny.

[Zeta-Flux]

do you have cases which have cited the Prop 8 ruling as the basis for apply strict scrutiny? I know there have a few cases here and there, in different circuits, concerning homosexual couples and discrimination, but I do not recall that any of them cited the Prop 8 case as the or a basis for applying strict scrutiny.

From the motion to vacate:

Additionally, the high-profile nature of this case, its overriding importance to countless people in California and throughout the Country, Chief Judge Walker’s sweeping and anomalous factual” findings, and his unprecedented and unexplained legal conclusions magnify the risk of injustice in other cases that would result from denying this motion and declining to vacate the judgment. In fact, other federal courts have already relied on Chief Judge Walker’s “factual” findings, see Dragovich v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, --- F. Supp. 2d --- , 2011 WL 175502, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011), and his unprecedented legal conclusions, see RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of DuBois, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2010 WL 4959879, at *45 n.50 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2010) (citing this case for the proposition under federal law that “strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation”). Hence, treating this case as though Chief Judge Walker had no appearance of partiality and no personal interest in the outcome poses a particularly serious risk of spreading injustice to other federal litigation.

[california boy]

The relevant law is found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html.

My impression of the (liberal) legal experts (at least the ones I read in the media) was that almost all of them misunderstood the proponents position. They would all say ridiculous things like "The proponents position would imply that women couldn't sit on cases involving abortion, or black people couldn't sit on cases dealing with race, or religious people couldn't sit on cases dealing with religion." Sometimes they would completely mischaracterize the argument, as the plaintiffs and Walker often did, by saying that it was about Walker's homosexuality. They failed to understand that it was about a judge granting himself a new legal right which he (probably/maybe?) wanted to use.

As for Ware's position: I think it would have been stronger if he had merely said something like "There is insufficient evidence that Walker wants to get married." Ware's ruling that Walker's desire for marriage is irrelevant seems to grossly miss the plain meaning of the law (and contradict what many (even liberal) experts I read did say). The law states: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Desire of a judge to get married when the current law prevents it causes me to (in my opinion) reasonably question impartiality.

Or, to put it another way-- Walker's decision was overbroad and instead of giving relief simply to the couple who filed originally he ruled that the law was unconstitutional throughout California. In essence (if not in fact) he made all homosexual couples who want to get married parties to the suite.

Of course some other judges do. That doesn't say much though does it? For example, the supreme court often votes 5-4 on these types of issues.

Thanks for clarifying your position for me. I think I understand it better. BTW, your link doesn't work. And like you point out, rulings are rarely unaminous. So even judges disagree with what a ruling should be.

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think a judge could have granted relief to a couple without it being on the basis of prop 8 being unconstitutional. He has to base his decision on some reason for granting the relief. So I think ruling prop 8 unconstitutional would be the only way to rule in favor of the plantiff. But hey, I am not a lawyer nor an expert. Maybe you could tell me what the ruling could have been short of declaring prop 8 unconstitutional.

I

[frankenstein]

thanks, i found one the citations

Dragovich v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury -- The court is analyzing the reasons offered by Congress for DOMA specifically the reason to encourage heterosexual marriage.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does not encourage heterosexual marriages. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 972 (N.D.Cal. 2010) (“Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stabilityof opposite-sex marriages.”)

[cdowis]

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does not encourage heterosexual marriages. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 972 (N.D.Cal. 2010) (“Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stabilityof opposite-sex marriages.”)

Granting a driver's license to a blind person will not affect the number of seeing persons from applying for and receiving a driver's license. The court is stating the obvious -- the general purpose of a license has nothing to do with protecting the current license holders.

[frankenstein]

Granting a driver's license to a blind person will not affect the number of seeing persons from applying for and receiving a driver's license. The court is stating the obvious -- the general purpose of a license has nothing to do with protecting the current license holders.

cdowis, please do some research on the the HUGE difference between a marriage license (marriage being a fundamental right) and a drivers license (drivers license being a privilege). And once you have educated understanding of the very significant difference you will realize the silliness of your comparisons.

More to the point, at LDS Church a authority from the Church was speaking to the Stake and stated that "prop 8 will protect your marriages", similar statements about protecting current marriages have also been stated else where.

From the Congressional Record for enacted DOMA

In this section of the Report, the Committee briefly discusses four of the governmental interests advanced by this legislation: (1) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage

[Mordecai]

marriage being a fundamental right

We all know it's a fundamental right to "live together as husband and wife." But gay people can already do that. How about discussing the actual issue, which is having the gov't adopt your obviously false dogma that a gay union is the same as a straight union or that their differences are irrelevant.

Of course, I can see why you'd want to talk about something other than the real issue.

[Calm]

BTW, your link doesn't work.

Probably need to remove the period at the end.

[Daniel2]

How about discussing the actual issue, which is having the gov't adopt your obviously false dogma that a gay union is the same as a straight union or that their differences are irrelevant.

<Sigh>

Once again, I'll point out that no one is suggesting that "gay unions are the same as straight unions." Neither is anyone suggesting that the differences between the two "are irrelevant."

NO two marriages (even the straight kind) are "the same"--and every single one has very "relevant" differences from the next.

The matter of civil marriage equality is having our government equally recognize the marriages of both straight and gay couples, and having our government equally recognize the marriages of both conservative religions and liberal religions, and having our government equally recognize the marriages of religious believers and irreligious non-believers--NOT that "[x] unions are the same as [x] unions."

"Relevant differences" is not synonymous with "legally-relevant differences."

Daniel2

[Mordecai]

Once again, I'll point out that no one is suggesting that "gay unions are the same as straight unions." Neither is anyone suggesting that the differences between the two "are irrelevant."

You're just suggesting that the gov't adopt that position, even though you know it's a false one. You think this is more rational than genuinely believing the two are the same and then advocating that the gov't adopt that position?

Isn't that like wanting the gov't to use the phrase, "fat free," to describe McDonald's hamburgers, but then declaring, "But no one is saying they are actually fat free! It's just food equality! There is no legal difference between a McDonald's hamburger and skim milk!"

NO two marriages (even the straight kind) are "the same"--and every single one has very "relevant" differences from the next.

We're not talking about the people. We're talking about marriage, in principle. That's like arguing, "Well, no two oranges are the same, so clearly, we might as well also include apples in the category of oranges."

...The matter of civil marriage equality is having our government equally recognize the marriages of both straight and gay couples...

For this to make a modicum of sense, a gay union would have to be the same as a straight union or have no relevant differences. But as you implicitly admit, they're not the same and have relevant differences.

"Relevant differences" is not synonymous with "legally-relevant differences."

The gov't doesn't live in a vacuum in the United States. Representatives are charged with promoting the general welfare, protecting free speech and being our representatives. Judges must be rational in order to be just and promote only rational laws. All laws must be rational, or they are unjust laws, which means they are not laws at all but commandments from self-ordained prophets.

On so many levels, the differences between a gay union and marriage are relevant to the general welfare. Not only that, laws regarding the two must remain rational, just, protect free speech (by not muddling the language) and reflect the values of constituents. That means prop. 8 should stand for so many legal reasons.