Why Do we even vote?

[MARIS61]

Yes. Which is why I said that it's the will of the people to have checks on the will of the people. We, as a society, want courts to prevent majority votes from enacting unconstitutional discrimination. We've purposely tied our own hands in certain ways, which I think is wise.

Majority votes are rarely representative of the majority will of the people, since the majority of the people do not vote.

Take Chris Dudley for instance.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I'm with the founding fathers on this one: I don't trust the people to make rational decisions on which direction the country should go. They're too stupid.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Re: Re: Why Do we even vote?

Haven't yet met the man, but he seems to embrace everyone with equal respect.

He's against gay marriage.

 

[crandc]

Mook, I did not wish to reply to the article you linked until I had read Judge Walker's decision in its entirely (which the writer of the article admits not having done). Now, I can say why I think the article is wrong. Judge Walker explains early on that there were diagreements between the two sides as to the facts. Therefore it was appropriate that the majority of the decision focus on establishing facts. There is a difference between being thorough and throwing "everything but the kitchen sink" at someone/thing. The factual review was and needed to be thorough. You know, in an election campaign, a person/group can say anything they choose, pretty much. But in a court of law they have to provide evidence. The trial showed that the supporters of Prop 8 could not provide any evidence for any of their claims. In nonjudicial language, their entire campaign was based on lie after lie. Not one single thing they said publicly during the campaign or at trial in support of Prop 8 could be verified. That's important to establish because to single out one group for discriminatory treatment requires compelling evidence of an overriding state interest in such treatment. They had none. Also, what I did not know until last week (I'm a biologist, not a lawyer) is that legal ruling consist of "finding of fact" and "finding of law". On appeal, finding of fact is very rarely challenged, only if it can be shown to be really egregiously wrong. So by being thorough in his finding of fact, Judge Walker was making it more difficult for his decision to be overturned. (Not surprisingly the pro-Prop 8 supporters are basing their appeal not on what they said in the campaign, not on what they said at trial, but on yet another issue, that courts should not overturn a majority vote, even though there is ample precedent for such overturns; and the decision addresses this issue as well.) Finally, as for the judge trying to write a historic opinion, like it or not, he was. This was the first time a Federal court has ruled on the issue of marriage equality so it was going to be a historic opinion regardless.

I thank you and the writer of the article for maintaining civil discourse. A welcome relief these days (witness the "Michelle Antoinette" and other vulgar threads mindlessly and endlessly regurgitating the spewing of AM scream radio).

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't understand why we would have any restrictions on "marriage" at all. Seems to me that if people want to enter into a financial agreement to join their property together, they should be permitted to.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I don't understand why we would have any restrictions on "marriage" at all. Seems to me that if people want to enter into a financial agreement to join their property together, they should be permitted to.

Bam. Truth. Repped.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I don't understand why we would have any restrictions on "marriage" at all. Seems to me that if people want to enter into a financial agreement to join their property together, they should be permitted to.

And we have that without Gay Marriage. Its called a Domestic Partnership/Civil Union.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

And we have that without Gay Marriage. Its called a Domestic Partnership/Civil Union.

Which many states do not offer at the same level of rights and privilages as a "marriage", if at all. If that were not the case, this would not be an issue.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Which many states do not offer at the same level of rights and privilages as a "marriage", if at all. If that were not the case, this would not be an issue.

Sure it would. In California they are the same. And we still have this huge debate about simple semantics.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Sure it would. In California they are the same. And we still have this huge debate about simple semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]

Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]

California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]

Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]

There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.

The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]

California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)]

 

[crandc]

Sure it would. In California they are the same. And we still have this huge debate about simple semantics.

Covered in Judge Walker's decision is why civil unions are not the same and why marriage is not just semantics. Have you read it?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If civil unions were exactly the same as gay marriage, would you support them? an easier path to "equal rights" would be to have civil unions have the same definintions as marriage. Then gays have the rights they are wanting and the church thumpers don't have to argue about Gay Marriage.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Its so simple!

 

[chris_in_pdx]

If civil unions were exactly the same as gay marriage, would you support them? an easier path to "equal rights" would be to have civil unions have the same definintions as marriage. Then gays have the rights they are wanting and the church thumpers don't have to argue about Gay Marriage.

Civil Unions *SHOULD* be marriages. The goverment and the churches should have completely seperate goals. As stated above, I (and I think crandc) would be in complete agreement with you.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Well the problem is the religious groups will forever fight gay marriages even if the supreme court weighs in on it. So just make everyone get civil unions and the churches and organizations issue marriages (which hold only a ceremonial distinction). Would save a shitload of arguing, time and everyone's money IMO.

 

[mook]

I think it's a great idea too to split the religious institution of marriage with the legal status of civil union.

Ironically, marriages are one of the few remaining functions served by religious groups among millions of Americans. Last time I spoke to a priest was in 2002 to discuss our wedding ceremony.

The end result of all this anti-gay marriage stuff could be that the religious drive away one of the last good reasons I can see to go into a church. I know that if one of my sons gets married many years from now, I'm going to strongly discourage him from participating in any sort of ceremony in a building that discriminates against gays.

 

[crandc]

In the US marriage is and always has been civil. Clergy coduct marriages because the states allow them to do so. Clergymembers may decline to conduct a particular marriage but that has no bearing on whether the state legally recognizes that marriage. Civil unions for gays aside from not covering all benefits sets up a special institution only for same sex couples while straight couples alone have access to "real" marriage. It explicitly defines same sex couples as separate and unequal and stigmatizes them as being outside of "real" marriage. You could not find any same sex couple who finds them equal and in fact people who oppose marriage equality know civil unions are not equal. Of course many of those people oppose civil unions anyway because they don't want gays and lesbians to have any rights, even inferior segregated ones.

Gays and lesbians are the only sector explicitly legally set aside as having inferior rights in the US. By law (although not practice) all ethnicities, races & religions are equal before the law. By law men and women are equal. By law people with disabilities are equal. Everyone is equal before the law, except GLBT people.

Again, read the decision.

 

[Denny Crane]

What's the point of a civil union law in California when the married couple can't move to Texas and have their union acknowledged?

On the face of it, if there are two sets of rules, one is certain to be inferior in some way.

It has to be marriage as the law knows it everywhere, and it is going to be (and should be) legitimized everywhere (as it should be).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

What's the point of a civil union law in California when the married couple can't move to Texas and have their union acknowledged?

On the face of it, if there are two sets of rules, one is certain to be inferior in some way.

It has to be marriage as the law knows it everywhere, and it is going to be (and should be) legitimized everywhere (as it should be).

Would that change if there was gay marriage in California? If gay marriage was legal in California, would it be recognized in Texas?

 

[Denny Crane]

Would that change if there was gay marriage in California? If gay marriage was legal in California, would it be recognized in Texas?

Marriage is marriage. There are centuries of common law precedents that shape the laws throughout the nation. If Texas wanted to refuse it, they'd have to pass a law that would equally be thrown out in court. With civil unions, it is not so clear.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

In the US marriage is and always has been civil. Clergy coduct marriages because the states allow them to do so. Clergymembers may decline to conduct a particular marriage but that has no bearing on whether the state legally recognizes that marriage. Civil unions for gays aside from not covering all benefits sets up a special institution only for same sex couples while straight couples alone have access to "real" marriage. It explicitly defines same sex couples as separate and unequal and stigmatizes them as being outside of "real" marriage. You could not find any same sex couple who finds them equal and in fact people who oppose marriage equality know civil unions are not equal. Of course many of those people oppose civil unions anyway because they don't want gays and lesbians to have any rights, even inferior segregated ones.

Gays and lesbians are the only sector explicitly legally set aside as having inferior rights in the US. By law (although not practice) all ethnicities, races & religions are equal before the law. By law men and women are equal. By law people with disabilities are equal. Everyone is equal before the law, except GLBT people.

Again, read the decision.

If men and women are equal, I should be able to freely go into a women's restroom with no fear or repercussion.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Marriage is marriage. There are centuries of common law precedents that shape the laws throughout the nation. If Texas wanted to refuse it, they'd have to pass a law that would equally be thrown out in court. With civil unions, it is not so clear.

I thought gay marriages in Massachusettes aren't recognized in other states as legal.

 

[barfo]

If men and women are equal, I should be able to freely go into a women's restroom with no fear or repercussion.

Have you ever gone into a women's restroom? I've never been anything but welcomed. Certainly no fear of/or repercussion. Then again, your mileage may differ.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Have you ever gone into a women's restroom? I've never been anything but welcomed. Certainly no fear of/or repercussion. Then again, your mileage may differ.

barfo

Actually I have. I have yet to be kicked out.

 

[barfo]

Actually I have. I have yet to be kicked out.

Well, there you go then. That resolves your issue.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

go team!

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought gay marriages in Massachusettes aren't recognized in other states as legal.

Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is also being overturned.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution reads:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

[blazerboy30]

Have you ever gone into a women's restroom? I've never been anything but welcomed. Certainly no fear of/or repercussion. Then again, your mileage may differ.

barfo

I've never seen you before. Can people tell by looking at you that you're a man? Pat, is that you?

 

[maxiep]

I don't understand why we would have any restrictions on "marriage" at all. Seems to me that if people want to enter into a financial agreement to join their property together, they should be permitted to.

Exactly. Get the government out of the marriage business. Create civil unions for everyone who wants them--straight, gay, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, whatever. Marriage should be the provence of churches only. Repped.