The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Well what are proponents going to argue? The only arguement they have is based on opinion. They have no facts.

I feel like they could have made more of a legal "this is not the case under the law" argument if they'd wanted to. I'm not sure they really tried.

[Jenksismyhero]

I feel like they could have made more of a legal "this is not the case under the law" argument if they'd wanted to. I'm not sure they really tried.

 

Yeah, like the fact that marriage is in the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government.

 

 

[bmags]

Yeah, like the fact that marriage is in the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government.

 

california

[bmags]

I feel like they could have made more of a legal "this is not the case under the law" argument if they'd wanted to. I'm not sure they really tried.

 

Andrew Sullivan is raising the question whether Scalia would actually be on the side of gay marriage because of Lawrence v. Texas. It's an interesting hypothesis.

[Jenksismyhero]

california

 

?

 

[bmags]

California is a state.

[StrangeSox]

That's a special kind of fail right there.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm saying that the laws of marriage are created by states, not the federal government. California should be able to decide the requirements of marriage, as it defines it, however it wants.

 

How is this a fail?

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, like the fact that marriage is in the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government.

 

Right, but the definition of marriage has to not violate any of the amendments of the US constitution. By denying gay couples the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy and are entitled to, there is a clear conflict with providing same sex couples and multiple sex couples the equal protection under the law that the constitution guarantees all of us, regardless of who we are.

 

It seems that there needs to be a compelling reason to deny a couple the same contractual opportunities from a state that other couples receive. It's really difficult to find a compelling reason with empirical evidence to back up any claim that same sex couples should be treated any differently than multiple sex couples when it comes to marriage.

[Soxy]

that's unfortunate.

Says the dude that's considering a threesome. Maybe there is a third gender I am currently unaware of?

[Soxy]

Yeah. We should be able to have married couples have 3-ways but gays shouldn't even marry at all. The sanctity of marriage!!

Damn it! Great minds.

[whitesoxfan101]

I'll never understand how somebody can be against same sex marriage being legal. If you're not gay or morally against it, don't do it! But to want to withhold rights to a group of people because you think it's different or you think it's weird or even due to it being against your beliefs is kind of silly. As a straight person who goes to church, I just don't see how allowing gay people to get married impacts me negatively (or at all, really).

Edited August 5, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[BigSqwert]

I'll never understand how somebody can be against same sex marriage being legal. If you're not gay or morally against it, don't do it! But to want to withhold rights to a group of people because you think it's different or you think it's weird or even due to it being against your beliefs is kind of silly. As a straight person who goes to church, I just don't see how allowing gay people to get married impacts me negatively (or at all, really).

What difference does it make if the gay couple next door is married or not?

[whitesoxfan101]

What difference does it make if the gay couple next door is married or not?

 

I'm much more concerned with if my neighbor is an asshole than I am if they're gay.

[StrangeSox]

What difference does it make if the gay couple next door is married or not?

 

False dichotomy. You've left out the option of burning them both at the stake.

[CrimsonWeltall]

At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."

[StrangeSox]

I'm saying that the laws of marriage are created by states, not the federal government. California should be able to decide the requirements of marriage, as it defines it, however it wants.

 

How is this a fail?

 

You're advocating for the states being able to breach individual rights in the US Constitution. 14th amendment, yo.

[whitesoxfan101]

Yeah. We should be able to have married couples have 3-ways but gays shouldn't even marry at all. The sanctity of marriage!!

 

But dude! That's different! Hot chicks making out and having sex with me is cool! But gay people, that's weird and different and immoral. Gross!

 

Three ways=Cool, because I get to have sex with two chicks.

 

Gay=Weird.

 

Can't you see the difference? It's SO obvious, and definitely not hypocritical.

[BigSqwert]

But dude! That's different! Hot chicks making out and having sex with me is cool! But gay people, that's weird and different and immoral. Gross!

 

Three ways=Cool, because I get to have sex with two chicks.

 

Gay=Weird.

 

Can't you see the difference? It's SO obvious, and definitely not hypocritical.

And those 2 girls having sex with each other in front of me aren't having gay sex because I say so.

[whitesoxfan101]

And those 2 girls having sex with each other in front of me aren't having gay sex because I say so.

 

Absolutely. The girls aren't having sex with each other, they're both having sex with me.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the actual decision:

 

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55367172.pdf

[bmags]

this isn't new. Everyone knew at the time of the trial that the prop 8ers got destroyed in every way. That doesn't mean that's how the judge would decide.

[StrangeSox]

At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s United States District Court For the Northern District of California interest in regulating marriage.” Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of

this point.”

 

 

ahahahahahahahahha

 

Someone needs to tell these morons that argument by assertion doesn't work.

 

Wonder if they waived their hand a la Obi-Wan when they said that.

Edited August 5, 2010 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

andrew sullivan addressing the judge's sexuality:

So Bradley wants to raise the issue of Walker's alleged bias - without substantiating any claims to it - while not raising it. Leave this particular piece of passive aggression aside - and you find that the logical conclusion of preventing gay judges from adjudicating on questions to do with gay rights would be removing all gay people from the discussion. Every gay person might one day fall in love and want to get married. Some may choose not to (should they recuse themselves too?); some may believe it violates their faith (ditto); others may already be in such marriages in one of five states (ditto plus plus). Similarly, since we are debating the alleged superiority of heterosexual sexual orientation here, is not heterosexuality by the same reasoning also a conflict of interest? Or are gay rights only legitimate when they are supported by straight people?

And here's something that really does pose a dilemma for a free and fair society. On this issue, there is scarcely any opposition in the gay community. Yes, there are some debates about the role of courts, and strategy. But I know of almost no gay people who would disagree with the core arguments that Judge Walker elaborated upon. And so we really do get an almost exquisite example of a majority deciding the fate of an issue where the minority is united and clear. When Newt Gingrich speaks of the views of "the American people", he means heterosexuals.

 

That is also a conversation worth having.

[StrangeSox]

More awesomeness:

 

1man1woman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children, Tr 1919:3-1922:21, and because Proposition 8 will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands, Tr 1928:6-13. Tam identified NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality, because he “believe in what they say.” Tr 1939:1-9. Tam identified “the internet” as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.

 

Reminding me more and more of the types of arguments made for creationism in schools.