SF Judge: "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples  

Actually it has been addressed repeatedly. Not chosing to agree with the reasoning is simply your way of ignoring it.

Certain courts are in a very dangerous place with their rulings lately, especially our own Supreme Court with their increasing propensity to make rulings not on the Constitution but on international standards or court rulings, or on nothing more than personal opinion or whim.

Given human nature though, and the fact that one judge in one court can rule as they wish on almost any matter, I'm sure it will come up for review with the California Supreme Court. If that court refuses to clearly honor the clear understanding and desires of the people as written in the law and concoct some fantasy reasoning to justify their personal opinion, then it is likely that California, as many other states have done, will simply change their Constitution.

It is sort of the people's way of saying if you can't read and understand this, let me make it CAPS and BOLD for you.


It is about the right to self-govern and for those governed to determine the definition of their own words. No right is absolute and one group claiming that a right has been violated simply because they don't want to follow the norms set up for the rest of society to gain access to that right is nonsense. The constant equating of this to a civil rights matter or being the same as race is nonsense as well. Race is a societal construct that has no scientific basis. Gender is not made up.

There is a big difference between claiming that a societal standard is applied unevenly or in a biased manner, and simply declaring that society has no right to create a standard.

Anyone who declares that gender is no basis for determining marriage eligability refuses to admit that age,and number of partners have no greater historical precident, and no greater rationality. Yet they refuse to endorse those measures and fully declare that society has the right to govern on them without it being a civil rights matter. They cling to their own stubborn nonsense that they are more politically correct for now and that is good enough reasoning for them.

To make it clear, anyone who claims that age and number can be governed, but gender cannot is practicing their civil rights reasoning in a hypocritical manner.


Bullshit reasoning doesn't need a counter. When someone claims the earth is a cube, that doesn't need a counter, you just let the idiot look like the fool he or she happens to be. The judge is basically saying people don't have the right to govern themselves. What else would that inspire but outrage?

Nick

"Because the Bible says so" and "Because it's wrong" is not reasoning.

The judge's decision was about rational reasoning and the judge addressed every argument made by the anti-gay marriage crowd and explained why each argument was wrong.

It is not true that gay couples make worse parents.
It is not true that gay couples would divorce more often.
It is not true that children of gay couples will be less well adjusted.
It is not true that law should always reflect the opinion of the majority.

In regards to age,

It is true that adolescents cannot make as well informed decisions as adults can.

In regards to polygamy (weaker argument),

It is true that polygamous relationships lead to societal problems, especially due to two factors: male domination and humanity's innate tendency towards jealousy.

Gay marriage is much more closely analogous to interracial marriage than either of the other two analogies. People just don't like it because they don't like it, without any true basis for social or anthropological concern.

California was the first state to explicitly legalize interracial marrige, in 1949, IIRC. Do you actually think that when California did that that the majority supported such a law?

The law MUST by it's very nature protect the minority, as well as the majority. The judge's ruling, and the undeniable fact is that there is no logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

And trumpt's post didn't even attempt to make any.

Exactly. Because there is none.

Here's the text of the decision:

http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf

I'm studying it now.

Glad to know even Catholic Republicans can be reasonable.

Can the state constitutions legally contridict the US consititution? What happens if California puts anti-gay marriage into its constitution?

No. If the US adopts a anti-gay marriage amendment (and it could not be called anything else) then California is out of luck.

But I honestly think such an amendment will never pass.

California has an anti-gay marriage clause in its constitution. That's what this case is all about (2 clauses, actually).

I stated the gender restriction.

The restriction of marriage to opposite gender makes just as much reasonable sense as the age and partner number restrictions. They are all clear and equally applied to all parties that attempt marriage. They are termed the norms that our society endorses and help promote the continuation of our society.

The rational restrictions on gender include the fact that society desires to promote biological couplings that promote children and the continuation of society. Complaining that divorce damages this is an argument to change divorce criteria, not change marriage criteria. There is also a societal interest in assuring equal numbers of both genders and encouraging partner forms that share this vision. History has proven that when gender numbers skew too far out of equlibrium the assignment or rights and valuation of both genders isn't too far behind.

Finally the Supreme Court has ruled that matters such as the draft only applying to men are constitutional. If you don't think that the right to conscript and force only one gender to serve denotes the ability to use gender for societial aims, then you might be a little misguided.

Nick

Arguing that traditional practices (also, values and beliefs) do not in themselves provide for legal rationale in terms of a law's constitutionality:

(Page 6, Line 25)


Do you honeslty not see the correlation, Nick?

You've argued why you think it's equal protection. Could not the same argument have been applied toward race?

The fact is that it is not equal protection.

By restricting marriage to opposite gender, heterosexuals are given a higher degree of protection than homosexuals. This cannot be denied.

In view of this fact (and it is... FACT), I cannot see how your argument is in any way rational. It is obtuse and moot.

I didn't say anything about the Bible or religion. Nice strawman though.


Amazingly enough I didn't mention any of those either.


You do realize that the word adult is just a legal word to sanction age descrimination don't you? Nice circular reasoning. Sort of like telling a kid "because I said so."

First there is no basis to believe that adults make any better informed decisions that adolescents. In fact many predictive factors such as IQ, and impulse control predict adult behaviors and likelyhood of success from very early ages. Should you have to pass an IQ test at a certain level before you marry? Must you demonstrate "well informed decision" making ability or be denied the right? How about if I can prove that 40 year old people make more well-informed decisions than 25 year olds. Can the 40 year olds deny the rights to the 25 year olds?


Did I read that right? Did you just declare that the right should be denied because someone might feel jealous?

Talk about a lack of "rational" reasoning.......

A right is a right the fact that someone can practice it more or better isn't a means of denying it.

I'm jealous that you get to talk more than me Ton, so no free speech for you. Also you might talk more than a woman, so again, no free speech for you.

Not rational by any stretch.

Nick

Don't you understand Nick, you are attempting to get away with the "Because I told you so" reasoning with regards to gay marriage.

Age restrictions are reasonable because of a more or less clear emotional shift that occurs at the end of adolescence -- we can define adolescence as a biological fact for everyone and place on it an average ending age -- it is thus reasonable. Sexuality restrictions prohibit freedoms of a subset of the population, and thus fail to address the equal protection clause of the constitution etc etc etc.

Okay, I know exactly what your argument is, Nick.

Read this, Mr. Strawman:


Does that not address your points?

You see, they tried your exact same argument in the interracial marriage debate. And lost.

Oh my god. You do know that adolescents go through biological change, right?

I'd like to see you raise your kids based on such a belief as that which you claim here.

I'd like you to respond to this point, Nick.

Also, Nick, you are arguing against same sex marriage based on legal claims of equality which have been clearly and rationally rejected by the court.

But honestly, why? Why do you object to same sex marriage. This is the question that cannot be answered rationally.

For procreation? Nope. This has been addressed in the ruling.

For tradition? Nope. This has been addressed in the ruling.

For religion? Nope. This is so clearly unconstitutional that such arguments are never even brought up.

For social reasons (i.e. homosexuality causes problems in society)? Nope. This was not addressed in the ruling, but it has been proven time and again that such reasons do not statistically exist.

So why do you object, Nick? The only conclusion one could come to is that you yourself are discriminatory against homosexuals. And the law has no place to support such discrimination.

There are a lot of problems with this.

The first is that marriage, as observed by the Christians, is a joke. Anyone who looks at the Christian community while they portend a true understanding of marriage can smell the hypocrisy a mile a way.

The Second is that homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons, and that there are pathologies that linked to the practice that are very troubling. And, yes I understand that those pathologies are all to be blamed on society, but this is not realistic, given the behaviors of similarly ostracized groups.

There is also a lack of Christ-like love for the gay community, where is has become nearly too great a sin to be homosexual and be able to ask for help.

The next problem lies with the gay community, who apparently think the sensibilities of the the majority of Californians, at least, are inconsequential. Many people at least claim to want to honor marriage, or define it in a certain way, are considered evil, or stupid or, as someone linked to a week or so ago on these forums, "feces mingled with ejaculate". People who want to rewrite a very basic institution, and fein to not 'get it' when they are offending a great many people are disingenuous. Not to mention that gay marriege would make Christianity 'intolerant' as the offical working doctrine of the State.

Gays don't have much reason to do this with marriage -- they can convenant with each other outside the marriage contract -- this leaves the motive to be the dismantling of traditional marriage by changing the implicit meaning of a 'God-created institution' to a 'freedom of choice insitution'. It's culturally insensitive for the Gay community to take an institution that does not fit in their worldview the way it was created and tamper with it enough to make it mean essentially the exact opposite.

This has nothing to do with equal protection, discrimination, or any other clever rhetorical technique. It has everything to do with taking a "God said so" issue and making it a 'I said so' issue. The problem is that the Christians generally are as IGNORANT of the underpinnings of what they believe, as the gay community is COGNIZANT.

The social conservatives can't really be much help in this, becuase in lieu of having homosexuality back on the DSM, they lack systematic doctrine of what marriage is all about.

You've made some good points here, as well as some bad ones.

Yes, Christians do not generally treat marriage with the respect that they claim they need to defend marriage from a non-traditional arrangement.

No. Tradition cannot be taken into consideration in matters of law unless there's a rational need to maintain state's interest. there is no state's interest in restricting marriage to opposite genders. This is addressed in the ruling.

And I know lots of gay Christians. Lots. So it is not true that gays cannot turn to God. Just because your church denies homosexuals equality does not mean there are not, or should not be, churches that do not.

And last, separate but equal. Separate but equal is not acceptable. And this is addressed in the ruling, as well.

Your church has every right to deny gays the right to marry. Your state does not.

That first point is exaclty right, there either will be a major philosophical shift on this one way or the other. The needs of the State have to be 'informed' either by 'first principles' based either in Materialism or [in this case] Christianity.

The second is a Theological issue -- I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole.

The last point I think is clever rehtoric, and Trumptman may well have you guys on that one -- that could be used in nearly any case -- it's more of a 0 = 0 thing, but in the end it goes back to your first point.

Actually, it's not 0=0.

0=0 would be the case if the State did not recognize any marriages at all, and only recognized civil unions for the sake of legal protection. I would support such an arrangement, assuming civil unions were available to all equally.

By the way, I've read the entire ruling, and understood the reasoning behind it. I hope those of us for whom this is an important issue might do the same.

I think it is, in that you have to presupose that gay marriage is in the interest of the State. You could presuppose that with bigamy or open marriage and still come out in the same spot.

The thing with using the 'separate but equal' question here is that it uses a materialist mindset right from the start, it basically goes to traditional marriage and says 'your reasons for being are wrong or deficient' -- but does it by simply posing the question.

This all about whether freedom comes from God or from political organization.

No, you absolutely do not.

It is the state's responsibility to prove that a ban on gay marriage is in the interest of the state. They have not even attempted to do so. This is one of the bases for this decision.

Huh? God cannot give us freedom. Only people can. Or did you mean "rights"?

Yes, but from a materialist prespective. Don't get me wrong, I have not read the decision, but I would imagine the logic, as such, is sound. Once you pose the question you're home free.

State's interest is not limited to a material perspective. In fact, other states (not California) have argued that a ban on same-sex marriage is in state's interest for various reasons: procreation and tradition being two that were explicitly denied in the text of this ruling. California has not made any argument for state's interest at all.

The strongest argument made by the state in regards to restriction of marriage rights according to this ruling seems to be against fraud. Don't worry, dmz, if you marry a beautiful woman who claims to be a woman and on your honeymoon you find out that she has a penis, then you have a full right to an annulment.

The problem is wound up in what is "freedom". The idea that you are not 'free' to choose whatever you wish but rather that 'sin' is slavery to the privative.

If you can remove God as defining 'sin' you can explore what is good and bad for yourself, and logically should try any and all forms of self-expression in that exploration. This is why the gay community is adamant about this, they need this self-expression because it defines who they are.

The gay community is being consistent in their thinking -- this is why the 'Rush Limbaugh' position is totally indefensible.

I hate it when that happens.

If you need a book to tell you the difference between right and wrong, then there is a problem somewhere.

It is wrong to do something that harms someone else. And there are levels, depending on the amount of harm vs. the amount of benefit, and to whom. It's pretty clear that discrimination against gays does far more harm to more people than homosexuality itself does.

And the Bible can be interpreted to support any personal interpretation of right and wrong. It's completely up to the church leaders as to which interpretations to promote. It has nothing to do with God.

If you like, dmz, I can recommend a church for you in your area that believes that homosexuality is not a sin. There's no reason you need to accept your own church's position on the matter.

!!!

You should actually quote the reasoning you claim I am attempting to get away with and address it instead of just mischaracterizing it.

We can also define gender as a biological fact and also define for everyone. Courts have also stated that decisions that decisions based on gender are permitted, even when the infringe on the rights of a particular group as I mentioned in the draft.

Lastly when discussing puberty you can demonstrate a hormonal shift, but even then, that doesn't guarantee a loss of rights. Would you seriously suggest a loss of rights to women going through menopause for example?

Again, nonsense.

Nick

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the ruling. Surprise, surprise.

That's an interesting post BUT I'm definitly staying away from the theological/dogmatic end of this.

Actually no it doesn't apply to it at all and shows why the reasonings is so wrong.

With race-based marriages, you clearly have a different criteria being applied to two different groups. Worse still the criteria is not even a biological one, but a societal construct.

That is why this was part of the decision...


Additionally you are talking about a restriction placed upon both groups equally, but seperately. That is not the case with homosexual marriage. We do not have a law that states that hetorosexuals must marry the opposite gender and homosexuals must marry the opposite gender, but that heterosexuals may only marry heterosexuals and homosexuals may only marry homosexuals.

The example of the law I provided, would be an example of what the court rejected and the proper reasoning associated with it. We did have a law claiming that whites could only marry whites, and blacks could only marry blacks. We do not have a law saying homosexuals and heterosexuals may only marry within their respective groups.

Hopefully you can see the difference now.

Nick

The race law said, effectively, that blacks and whites could only marry someone of the same race.

The marriage law said that men and women could only marry someone of the opposite gender.

It simply said the same exact thing through inclusion, rather than exclusion, but it's the same thing.

It's the same thing, for all intents and purposes. Intent. what is your intent, Nick?

Don't argue semantics. Look at the wood. Not the trees.

"We do not have a law that states that hetorosexuals must marry the opposite gender and homosexuals must marry the opposite gender, but that heterosexuals may only marry heterosexuals and homosexuals may only marry homosexuals."

And you lost me there. Are you drinking?

What we don't have is an ordinance which says that heterosexuals may marry whom they please and homosexuals may marry whom they please. That's what we deserve.

The law discriminates against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry eachother. Endy story. In order to support such a law, the state is required to prove that it is in state's interest to deny homosexuals the right to marry eachother when heterosexuals have that right. And the State hasn't even attempted to do so.

So I ask again, what is your interest in denying homosexuals the right to marry? Honestly... I'm waiting.

Funny how you refuse to answer the hard questions.