Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[TAO]

have I stated that ssm is a fundamental right, or have I only posted case which states that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right?

That isn't stated either. Marriage is a fundamental right. It never says 'to a person of one's own choosing'.

That is the problem, you see. The mairrage as of spoken in fundamental rights is very very vague as to what it means =P. =/.

[cdowis]

have I stated that ssm is a fundamental right, or have I only posted case which states that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right?

And I have posted a case where it is not. Where one is not free to choose a certain class of individuals for a spouse.

[frankenstein]

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage ...

[Mordecai]

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage ...

Then they cite Loving v. Virginia, which explains why it is a fundamental right and why it should be a personal choice, which is largely because "...Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race..." So the rationale supporting marriage as a right involves both sexes, so clearly, you couldn't use LaFleur to support the redefinition of marriage and at the same time, say it is a fundamental right.

If you say that a gay union is a marriage, you imply that marriage per se, isn't a fundamental right, because it doesn't, per se, have anything to do with procreation. That's rather self-defeating, because you undermine past arguments in favor of marriage being a right. Other arguments in favor of it being a fundamental right involve the core identity of the United States, which also doesn't apply to homosexual couplings.

[frankenstein]

zeta-flux,

concerning this:

"If this Court concludes that Proponents and the Imperial Intervenors lack standing to appeal, the judgment below must nevertheless be vacated. At a bare minimum, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent its judgment ex- tends beyond the four Plaintiffs who were before the court. Because no class has been certified in this case, this Court “must vacate and remand,” for “the injunction must be limited to apply only to the individual plaintiffs unless the district judge certifies a class of plaintiffs.”Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).10"

from a legal standpoint, is the principle here, that only a Supreme Court ruling can affect those not before the court but that a lower court can only affect the parties before unless a class was certified? Or does the principle only apply to the district courts. And when the 9th Cir issues a ruling it applies to the whole circuit, not just the parties?

[frankenstein]

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.

These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married. Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry. And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute's requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental.

[Zeta-Flux]

zeta-flux,

concerning this:

"If this Court concludes that Proponents and the Imperial Intervenors lack standing to appeal, the judgment below must nevertheless be vacated. At a bare minimum, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent its judgment ex- tends beyond the four Plaintiffs who were before the court. Because no class has been certified in this case, this Court “must vacate and remand,” for “the injunction must be limited to apply only to the individual plaintiffs unless the district judge certifies a class of plaintiffs.”Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).10"

from a legal standpoint, is the principle here, that only a Supreme Court ruling can affect those not before the court but that a lower court can only affect the parties before unless a class was certified? Or does the principle only apply to the district courts. And when the 9th Cir issues a ruling it applies to the whole circuit, not just the parties?

I don't know.

[frankenstein]

I don't know.

would you mind offering your opinion on what the party was getting with the Zapeda case then? I read what you posted but i did not really understand what they meant.

[Zeta-Flux]

would you mind offering your opinion on what the party was getting with the Zapeda case then? I read what you posted but i did not really understand what they meant.

My impression was that they were pointing out that judges rule with restraint. That Walker's ruling was overbroad and beyond his jurisdiction. In the context of what they wrote, this would only matter if they were not granted standing, since the Appellate court's ruling would apply to all of California.

[frankenstein]

Tao, cdowis, Stargazer, Mordecia,

here is why I think the plantiffs in California have good case in their favor, because california treats Civil Unions and Marriage as virtually the same in all aspects in every legal way but for title, so the debate is not about protecting the institution of marriage as there is nothing left to protect but a title, institutionally a married hetero couple is no different than a ss couple..

[Mordecai]

...there is nothing left to protect but a title...

Again, keeping the gov't from muddling the language falls under the category of a free speech issue, a REAL fundamental right.

...institutionally a married hetero couple is no different than a ss couple...

Wrong. Even Darin had admitted that they are different, and he's for "SS marriage."

[TAO]

Thought better of posting.

[Daniel2]

...institutionally a married hetero couple is no different than a ss couple...

Wrong. Even [Daniel2] had admitted that they are different, and he's for "SS marriage."

Mordecai,

You entirely misrepresent my position, twisting it to suggest the exact opposite of what I actually said.

As I have said time and time again, although any two marriages of any kind will have differences one-to-the-next, there are no legally-relevant differences between the civil marriage of an opposite-sex couple vs. the civil marriage of a same-sex couple.

The fact that there are no legally-relevant differences is what I understood Frankenstein to mean when he asserted that "institutionally a married hetero couple is no differen than a ss couple..." [bold added].

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks,

Daniel2

[Stargazer]

I never saw your reference to Washington State's code. And, yes, many if not all states have restrictions on marriage.

The exact quote is up there if you want to find it, and so you acknowledge what I was trying to say.

If you go back and read yours and mine first interactions in this thread, the interactions revolve mostly around you denying historical fact. That historical fact being, that ssm was a legal right in Ca. and that legal right was taken away by popular vote.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but the "right" for same-sex couples to marry has never been a right. The voters changed the state constitution to reverse something they felt was wrong, and because the constitution was changed, per Marbury v. Madison, the so-called "right" was not a right, ab initio. That means from its inception it was void. The gay marriages that were contracted during the period of time were, according to what I read, "grandfathered" or allowed to continue as marriages. This makes these associations not a matter of right, but a matter of privilege (which in the law dictionary means to permit something which would otherwise be unlawful). I'm not trying to deny that for a brief aberrational time California permitted some same-sex marriages be contracted, I am denying that there was a right for the contracting parties to do so.

What is your beef with a right being taken away by popular vote? Just because the will of the people was overriden and something was granted that shouldn't have been granted doesn't make that thing something which forever afterwards must be endured by the electorate. Let's turn a certain argument back on its head. It is an indisputable fact that at one time a certain segment of the population had the right to own other members of the population, owned as in "chattel". To dispose of as the owner desired. That right was taken away by popular vote, thus depriving those citizens of their lawful property without due process of law. Are you going to come argue with me that just because there was at one time a right to own slaves, that that right should be restored? I hightly doubt it. What was once a fundamental injustice, done by right, was by popular vote undone and suddenly an entire class of people whom Dred Scott v. Sandborn had said could never be citizens of the United States, suddenly were, after all.

By the same token, it was once the right of kings to deal with their subjects as they saw fit, something which by popular vote (or sometimes revolution) was gradually undone in most of the world. Who is now arguing for a return to monarchy on the basis of the ancient right of kings? Not you, I am fairly sure.

Gay marriage is not marriage. It has never been, and if sanity prevails in this country, it will never be.

[Mordecai]

The fact that there are no legally-relevant differences is what I understood...

You said "institutionally different." Not "Legally different." Not that it matters. It is legally different, since lawmakers are obligated to represent the people, protect free speech (by not muddling the language) and promote the general welfare. Any difference that is relevant to the good of humanity is legally relevant.

[Stargazer]

Is this an argument for extending the right to marry to gay couples?? Have you changed your position like so many others? Good for you.

It certainily makes sense to extend marriage to all those couples that want a more stable relationship for all of the reasons you have stated above. I think all who support marriage would agree that less people living together without the bonds of marriage the better off and more stable this nation will be.

My step-mom's favorite brother (and I liked him, too), whom I will call Homer, lived in a gay relationship with his uncle, whom I will call Ned, for well over thirty years, until Ned died of old age I presume because I never heard anything different. They kept the relationship very low key and the rest of the family either turned a blind eye, or genuinely never suspected (it had to be an open secret because otherwise they were the most clueless people on earth). After Ned's death, Homer took up with another man, who was married to a woman, and when that man died of AIDS, Homer married the guys wife. They're still married and Homer is in his 80's now.

My uncle and granduncle did not need a paper with official markings on it to have a stable relationship. And each of them after all that, still retained the personal liberty to go outside the relationship -- I know because Homer once propositioned my younger brother. And each retained the right to get married to the woman of his choice, a right which Ned never availed himself of so far as I know, but one which Homer did exercise. Oh, and they lived in California, too, by the way.

I have two sons and a daughter who are living in fairly long-term relationships without benefit of marriage. They aren't finding this to be any impediment to their relationships. There are no children in these three situations, so the matter is simplied and very similar to a gay relationship: companionship; economic advantages due to the presence of two incomes; and best of all, no formal obligations. If they get tired of each other, all they need to do is for one of them to move out.

You don't need something called "marriage" to have stability. Especially when it isn't marriage.

And as I understand California's civil union law, it is marriage in all but name anyway.

[Stargazer]

Tao, cdowis, Stargazer, Mordecia,

here is why I think the plantiffs in California have good case in their favor, because california treats Civil Unions and Marriage as virtually the same in all aspects in every legal way but for title, so the debate is not about protecting the institution of marriage as there is nothing left to protect but a title, institutionally a married hetero couple is no different than a ss couple..

Specious argument, frankenstein. Yesterday my wife made mashed potatoes (usually my job, but it was Father's Day after all). Like my mom taught me, I use milk and butter to mash the potatoes together. I consider that I do a decent job of making mashed potatoes, too. But yesterday, for some reason there was no milk in the house, and it was Sunday and my wife is very observant of the day, so she used a substitute: sour cream. When we sat down to eat I found the potatoes to be absolutely delicious -- best I can remember tasting. I asked her what on earth she did to make them so good. I was astonished that she used sour cream. I would have thought that sour cream would have ruined the dish, but no.

Since it is now obvious to me that sour cream works just as well as milk, it is clear that the legislature should now rename sour cream "milk".

[Stargazer]

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.

These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married. Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry. And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute's requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental.

Well, you seem to be of the school of thought that believes that if a court case contains a couple of words similar to the words in another case that the cases must inevitably be about the same issue and the decision in one be used (stare decisis) to decide the other.

Let's look. Wisconsin attempted to prevent a man or woman from marrying another person of the opposite sex without a court order permitting it if either or both of the parties was a noncustodial parent, and would deny a court order permitting the marriage if there were an arrears in child support. The court decided that this violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

So, since the court ruled that a man and a woman have the right to marry each other, this means that men should be permitted to marry other men and the same for women.

Kind of a stretch.

[Analytics]

Specious argument, frankenstein. Yesterday my wife made mashed potatoes (usually my job, but it was Father's Day after all). Like my mom taught me, I use milk and butter to mash the potatoes together. I consider that I do a decent job of making mashed potatoes, too. But yesterday, for some reason there was no milk in the house, and it was Sunday and my wife is very observant of the day, so she used a substitute: sour cream. When we sat down to eat I found the potatoes to be absolutely delicious -- best I can remember tasting. I asked her what on earth she did to make them so good. I was astonished that she used sour cream. I would have thought that sour cream would have ruined the dish, but no.

"Mashed potatoes" contain potatoes, milk, and butter. This sour-cream dish is something different. Calling it "mashed potatoes" muddles the language, thereby inhibiting free speech. Lawmakers are obligated to protect free speech by not allowing the language to be muddled, so they must create a law that clarifies that this sour cream dish is not “mashed potatoes”.

[Mordecai]

"Mashed potatoes" contain potatoes, milk, and butter. This sour-cream dish is something different. Calling it "mashed potatoes" muddles the language, thereby inhibiting free speech. Lawmakers are obligated to protect free speech by not allowing the language to be muddled, so they must create a law that clarifies that this sour cream dish is not “mashed potatoes”.

I hope no one is trying to pass a law to trick people that sour cream and butter are the same thing. Or worse, having a judge pretend to interpret the law but in reality, pass one that results in such Newspeak. That would be almost as insane as trying to trick people that a gay union is the same as a marriage. We ought to prevent Big Brother imposing Newspeak on people, if at all possible, because Americans are dumbed down enough as it is without the gov't adopting nonsense like "gay marriage," or even, "sour cream is butter" dogma.

[frankenstein]

So, since the court ruled that a man and a woman have the right to marry each other, this means that men should be permitted to marry other men and the same for women.

Kind of a stretch.

All I have done on this thread is shown that marriage is a fundamental right. Though, I do not find it a stretch to take a statement from one case and apply it to another case. That is the law is all about.

[frankenstein]

Since it is now obvious to me that sour cream works just as well as milk, it is clear that the legislature should now rename sour cream "milk".

you have realized a few things, doggedly clinging to "milk" deprived you of the joys of sour cream.

Also, you have realized two things are just as good as each other.

The two products sour and milk come from the same source. And you can't have one with out the other.

But i think the most important lesson you could have learned is the first, that doggedly clinging to something can deprive you of other things which are just as good and equal to what you doggedly cling too.

[Daniel2]

you have realized a few things, doggedly clinging to "milk" deprived you of the joys of sour cream.

Also, you have realized two things are just as good as each other.

The two products sour and milk come from the same source. And you can't have one with out the other.

But i think the most important lesson you could have learned is the first, that doggedly clinging to something can deprive you of other things which are just as good and equal to what you doggedly cling too.

Well done, Frank.

Mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes, whether paired with butter or sour cream.

Daniel2

[Stargazer]

Well done, Frank.

Mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes, whether paired with butter or sour cream.

Daniel2

Ha ha, but mashed potatoes wasn't the issue, it was the sour cream.

But I think this is a dead-end simile, though quite tasty!

[Stargazer]

All I have done on this thread is shown that marriage is a fundamental right. Though, I do not find it a stretch to take a statement from one case and apply it to another case. That is the law is all about.

Yes, I know about the fundamental right thing, and I'll grant it to you. The thing we seem in disagreement over is what the right consists of. Since the institution of marriage has existed, the right has consisted of a man marrying a woman. Zablocki v. Redhail, a case that affirms the right as I have just stated it, without extending it a single jot or title, does not bear on the question of two men or two women marrying. Your attempt to stretch the case to cover gay marriage wouldn't pass muster in a argument at the bar, not by a long shot.

In other words, it is a stretch beyond any reasonable interpretation of the case.