Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[NERVUN]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

*hands B&C a taiyaki* You, sir, deserve a taiyaki for that one.

Sweet. I can chop shit up with this?

Well... you could TRY...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki

[Buffett and Colbert]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

*hands B&C a taiyaki* You, sir, deserve a taiyaki for that one.

Sweet. I can chop shit up with this?

Well... you could TRY...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki

It sounded like something sharp and pointy, what can I say?

[Lelouche]

Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.

I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.

put on your dunce cap, and enjoy it


I am not for banning marriage for homosexuals, or even straight people
by all means, get married
I'm for removing it as an institution to be controlled and regulated by the state

[Lelouche]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

(I personally do not think impact of tax burden should be the basis or a rights argument for others)

Tell that to people who support a fat tax

[Knowlandia]

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

Ahhh the unnatural argument so. . .refreshing.
There is more homosexuality in nature than there is many things that we use on a regular basis,
Once you go back to living in a tree, eating all your meals raw, fighting off predators with your bare hands or basic tools and drinking water straight from the stream THEN you can start calling homosexuality and homosexual adoption "unnatural" until then you're just another whinging hypocrite.

Fair enough. Homosexuality is abnormal.

So is practicing Religion.

Not really. Man is sort of programmed to wonder about were he came from, and come up with ideas about how he got here.

[Tekania]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

(I personally do not think impact of tax burden should be the basis or a rights argument for others)

Tell that to people who support a fat tax

Once again, I do not think the impact of a tax burden should be the basis of a rights argument for others... What this means, is that when other peoples rights are in question; what yours, mine, or anyone else's tax burden is, has no legitimate bearing on the matter. It's a non-point in an argument such as this where the issue is equal protection and due process.

[Lelouche]

~snip

Next time I see a fat tax thread, I'll hold you to this opinion

[Ashmoria]

Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.

I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.

put on your dunce cap, and enjoy it


I am not for banning marriage for homosexuals, or even straight people
by all means, get married
I'm for removing it as an institution to be controlled and regulated by the state

then maybe you should start a thread on that.

its irrelevant to this one.

[Londim]

Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"

I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.

[Lelouche]

then maybe you should start a thread on that.

its irrelevant to this one.

that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently

problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form

TCT has the monopoly on that.

[The Comments Section]

Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"

I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.

Laywers for Prop 8: Damn it, just try and cover up our fallible moral argument and make it something legal....

[Chumblywumbly]

then maybe you should start a thread on that.

its irrelevant to this one.

that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently

What about the time it takes to click 'New Topic'?

[Ashmoria]

then maybe you should start a thread on that.

its irrelevant to this one.

that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently

problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form

TCT has the monopoly on that.

then stop hijacking this thread.

the good time to discuss the legitimacy of existing law is when YOU care enough to make a coherent argument and start a thread.

[Ashmoria]

Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"

I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.

their total argument seemed to come down to "it was a legal referendum" and "gay is so icky that letting them get married is going to discourage anyone else from getting married"

[The Comments Section]

Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"

I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.

their total argument seemed to come down to "it was a legal referendum" and "gay is so icky that letting them get married is going to discourage anyone else from getting married"

-Legal Referedum-Overrided by Constitution.
-Icky-Falliable Moral Argument.

I think were done here, with the lawyers of Prop 8.

[Muravyets]

Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"

I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.

I've been lolling over this quite a lot. The pro-Prop 8 argument consists entirely of the arguments we've been hearing in NSG for a couple of years, and the judge's dismissals are pretty close to our dismissals of the same, only smarter and with the weight of the court. Hehe, I admit it - I feel

[Tekania]

then maybe you should start a thread on that.

its irrelevant to this one.

that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently

problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form

TCT has the monopoly on that.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't raise the entire legitimacy of civil marriage law in a thread discussing issues of substantive due process and equal protection claims... I generally get turned off to any argument which raises the rights issues of everyone only when suddenly a minority segment wants equal access to them and their rights to due process under the existing law recognized.

[The Comments Section]

Would the founders and other americans found the idea of homosexuality odd?
Yes, but that goes along with the times.

Are we intended to go exactly by our founder's quotes?
No, as the Constitution they established was meant to be flexible to the times, and to include ideas that they were sure would be unthinkable to them.

Our nation was not founded on the morality of our founders, but the ability to change government as times change.

[Ashmoria]

Would the founders and other americans found the idea of homosexuality odd?
Yes, but that goes along with the times.

Are we intended to go exactly by our founder's quotes?
No, as the Constitution they established was meant to be flexible to the times, and to include ideas that they were sure would be unthinkable to them.

Our nation was not founded on the morality of our founders, but the ability to change government as times change.

and it was expected that moral standards would change. the founders were expecting slavery to fall out of favor and wither away without the need of a civil war, for example.

[Ifreann]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

I deem this to be win, and it shall reside in my sig.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

I deem this to be win, and it shall reside in my sig.

I feel honoured to be in your sig. And I didn't even have to say ^this!

[Ifreann]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

I deem this to be win, and it shall reside in my sig.

I feel honoured to be in your sig. And I didn't even have to say ^this!

You? More like Judge Vaughn 'Manlove' Walker

[Buffett and Colbert]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

I deem this to be win, and it shall reside in my sig.

I feel honoured to be in your sig. And I didn't even have to say ^this!

You? More like Judge Vaughn 'Manlove' Walker

You bastard! You crushed my hopes and dreams!

[Ifreann]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

I deem this to be win, and it shall reside in my sig.

I feel honoured to be in your sig. And I didn't even have to say ^this!

You? More like Judge Vaughn 'Manlove' Walker

You bastard! You crushed my hopes and dreams!

Excellent!

[Saucy Tarts]

Okay … my 2 cents, because 2 cents is really what any of us really get in the grand scheme of things …

We all know that at one time it was illegal for Black people to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for Women to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for a Black person and a White person to marry each other in the U.S.. Okay. Now at one point in Colorado it was legal for a Man to marry his Donkey. It was. Look it up. Laws have to change and adapt in the U.S. to be inclusive and for us to be able to call ourselves a nation that espouses freedom.

Now in this 'progressive' nation where we now have a Black President and many Women holding powerful positions in Government, one would think that denying rights to a minority group and attempting to create yet another second class citizenry would be a thing of the past. Especially with as hard won as gaining rights was for both of those two groups. And any Black person or Woman who voted for Prop 8 in California is a hypocrite who obviously feel that rights for themselves are fine, but not for others.

Considering that Federal and State benefits are gained from 'marriage' it should likely be thus – instead of a marriage it should be a federal contract between two (or more) consenting adults, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. Yes I did say 'or more'. This should be a legally binding contract and federally united people should have to carry the responsibilities inherent with that union if they are to receive any benefits from that union. Meaning if a man wants 15 wives he should be legally and financially responsible to each of them and any children they create. And as it's consenting on all sides that means all the other 'wives' should be consenting to the union and their signatures required by law.

Now wait – I said 'union' not 'marriage'. This is why – the religious ideal of 'marriage' is obviously colouring way too many people's ideas here. And it's been said that government should be taken out of marriage – fine then, religion should be taken out of contracts that grant federal and/or state benefits. And frankly a 'marriage' performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi etc. should not be considered a FEDERALLY binding contracted union. It's a religious ceremony and does not and should not guarantee state or federal benefits. Which means people married by their church should not be gaining state or federal benefits.

Federal and State benefits are the real issue here. Because Gay people not being able to 'marry' means they are not allowed these benefits which should be allowed to any citizen of the United States as granted by the Laws that govern in it. But wait, Gay people pay taxes do they not? Yes they do, if they are Law abiding citizens, they most certainly do. So do they not deserve the same rights that are granted every other law abiding, tax paying United States citizen? Yes they do, or else they should be granted special dispensation from paying equal taxes as they are not granted equal rights.