9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years

[Tchaiko]

(02-10-2012 12:09 AM)myotch Wrote:  

Tchaiko Wrote:I'm disappointed to hear that Civil Rights™ was copyrighted by the black community. It would have been nice for all citizens to be able to campaign for rights, but they got there first, so (at least according to one competent voice on here) teh gayz aren't allowed. Oh, wait. . . If we went by those rules, women shouldn't have been allowed to campaign for suffrage. . . Hmm.

Civil rights applies to every single person who can claim protection under the Constitution. Opponents of gay marriage, however, don't see a ban on gay marriage as a civil right. The comparison of gay marriage to 60's civil rights or to the suffrage movement falls flat on it's face. No one is saying gays can't be gays, gays can't vote, or gays have to sit at the back of the bus. I guess everyone here, and I will include Greg as well, believe those who physically assault gays should be prosecuted under state laws regarding assault. I believe gays have the right to speech, assembly, religion and conscious, the right to guns (http://www.pinkpistols.org), rights against the quartering of soldiers, a right to a trial by jury, and rights against excessive punishment, fines, and prosecution. I have a hard time seeing where, constitutionally, gays have a civil rights issue regarding the government not recognizing gay unions.

I understand that. I was referring more specifically to where it was indicated by our beloved colleague that gays had "hijacked" Civil Rights. The idea that the gays can't use the same term as the blacks just because there are differences in the movements is ridiculous.

And with respect, your last sentence could have been accurately said about black people, too. The Constitution never says anything about seating on buses or which door you walk into. They had "the right to speech, assembly, religion and conscious, the right to guns, rights against the quartering of soldiers, a right to a trial by jury, and rights against excessive punishment, fines, and prosecution" in the 60s, too. But that didn't mean that they were equal.

We have to realize something. And that something is the wonderful clause in the Bill of Rights. Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The issue has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution allows me to marry. The government does not give me the right to do things. I have the right to do things because I am a human being. And to say that Civil Rights only applies to things clearly stated in Amendments 1-8 is a gross fallacy.

[myotch]

I feel you, Tchaiko.

The last sentence could be applied to blacks? Blacks had a problem getting married in the 60's?

Gay's haven't hijacked civil rights. However they have adopted MLK and the civil rights movement as icons and tactics for homosexual marriage. That's disconcerting. Gays have drawn a parallel to black equality and women's equality where the parallel doesn't exist. It is rhetorical and manipulative language.

Your citing of the Ninth comes with a noticeable absence of the Tenth. And no one disputes that the power to sanction, regulate, and license marriage is given to the individual states.

[Tchaiko]

I'm sorry. I should have specified what I meant about your last sentence. I meant that it can be used as "I have a hard time seeing where, constitutionally, _______ have a civil rights issue regarding _______________. The Constitution says nothing about seats on buses or entrances to private businesses.

I believe it all comes down to the Orwellian concept: "All [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others." "We can do _____ because it's always been done, but we won't let you do it because there's no historical precedent for your kind doing things like that. We're all equal, though. "The non-traditionals are tasked with proving why they should be allowed to have certain freedoms when it should be the job of those who want to restrict freedom to prove why it needs to be restricted.

And I know I did not mention the tenth. I know that it's a state issue. My mentioning of the ninth was mainly to point out that all of the talk of "Gay marriage in the Constitution" is a huge blind and totally inapplicable.

[diachenko]

(02-07-2012 10:32 PM)greg Wrote:  So they're at it again! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled today to nullify the good people of California's 2008 vote against homosexual marriage. Judicial tyranny at its very worst.

Let's turn this around with a hypothetical, Greg.

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled today to nullify the good people of California's 2008 vote in favor of homosexual marriage."

Would you still be calling it "judicial tyranny?" My guess is, no. You would likely be praising the court for bravely correcting the misguided views of the voters.

[myotch]

(02-10-2012 01:20 AM)Tchaiko Wrote:  I believe it all comes down to the Orwellian concept: "All [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others." "We can do _____ because it's always been done, but we won't let you do it because there's no historical precedent for your kind doing things like that. We're all equal, though. "The non-traditionals are tasked with proving why they should be allowed to have certain freedoms when it should be the job of those who want to restrict freedom to prove why it needs to be restricted.

Orwell wrote the better book. Huxley made the better prediction.

Redefining "marriage" isn't Orwellian newspeak as much as it is trivializing the term (the Huxley-an concept of dystopia features a society obsessed with both trivializing and self-indulgence).

Like I said before, marriage as it is practiced now is older than civilization and society. Civilization has been built on the concept of marriage and family as the basic unit. To what societal benefit do we retrofit the concept of marriage for those who have been historically excluded from marriage? To what importance do we, as a society, give this new definition of marriage? To what concept of liberty do we owe the government licensing and regulation of homosexual couples in the recognition of their relationship? It only serves to validate the orientation, and to allow the government to mediate the dissolution of the relationship.

Many types of heterosexual relationships are banned, as well, and government has an interest in not allowing some people to get married. In this way, as seen throughout the history of civilization, marriage has always been somewhat exclusionary. Typically, as history progresses, there seems to be MORE, not less, restriction on who exactly can marry whom, and restrictions include the existing relationship of people intending to marry (brothers and sisters, cousins), age of the people intending to marry, etc.

No law can actually force people to not have consensual sex, mind you. But the state does have an interest to refuse licensed marriage between two people who don't fit certain criteria.

[Tooktheredpill]

Quote:Civilization has been built on the concept of marriage and family as the basic unit.

When did civilization begin, in your opinion?

Quote:But the state does have an interest to refuse licensed marriage between two people who don't fit certain criteria.

What criteria? And how would the interests of the state be undermined by the legalization of gay marriage?

[bean]

Yeah, interracial marriage in places like Mississippi..Alabama...didn't go so well.

(02-10-2012 01:01 AM)myotch Wrote:  The last sentence could be applied to blacks? Blacks had a problem getting married in the 60's?

[bean]

(02-10-2012 12:09 AM)myotch Wrote:  Civil rights applies to every single person who can claim protection under the Constitution. Opponents of gay marriage, however, don't see a ban on gay marriage as a civil rights issue. The comparison of gay marriage to 60's civil rights or to the suffrage movement falls flat on it's face. No one is saying gays can't be gays, gays can't vote, or gays have to sit at the back of the bus. I guess everyone here, and I will include Greg as well, believe those who physically assault gays should be prosecuted under state laws regarding assault. I believe gays have the right to speech, assembly, religion and conscious, the right to guns (http://www.pinkpistols.org), rights against the quartering of soldiers, a right to a trial by jury, and rights against excessive punishment, fines, and prosecution. I have a hard time seeing where, constitutionally, gays have a civil rights issue regarding the government not recognizing gay unions.

14th Amendment--equal protection under the law.

[RobMille]

This thread is kind of painful to watch. Stamping your feet about how much you hate gays isn't going to stop the inevitable march of civil rights extended to human beings whether you like it or not. Sadly it probably is slowing it down.

[C_Fresh]

I'll throw my two cents into this mess. I am a supporter of traditional marriage. At the same time, I don't support the Defense of Marriage Act because I believe the issue is something that should be left to the states. In fact, I'm preferential to the idea that the states don't issue marriage licenses at all but rather recognize any two people who apply for partnership for the purpose of legal benefits normally bestowed on married individuals. Leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions. They can be like honorary doctorates; recognize them if you want to but they don't really mean much officially.

As to the civil rights issue of gay marriage: if you want to argue for equality, are you willing to argue the same equality to other groups who are currently denied marital rights? I think that if there is to be true equality then anybody should be able to marry anybody else as long as they are both consenting adults. I would include relatives and polygamy in this. I have no interest in marrying anyone other than a single member of the opposite sex who is not related to me but why shouldn't someone else be able to if they want? I still draw the line that it must be between consenting adults. Greg, this means you can't marry your German Shepherd because it cannot give consent. It also means that a minor cannot get married to some pedophile because they cannot give consent either.

Arguments against:
1. Marriages between close relatives are not permitted because of the increased risk of damaged genetics - I read a news article a couple years ago that said scientists say that the risk factors don't extend as far out as previously thought and most likely to occur starting with second generation inbreeding. Even if this was not the case, the wide availability of contraception, abortion, vasectomy, etc mean that there is no reason why conception should be an issue.

2. It goes against tradition - Once upon a time so did living with someone without getting married, marrying someone outside your 'race', and same-sex relationships. Just because its tradtional doesn't mean its right. As counterpoint, in some cultures, poligamy is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. This is the same argument that was used against all of them.

NOTE: I'm not actually supporting this but I see it as the logical result from an argument for equality. It does sort of fit with my libertarian leanings but my conservative side recoils from it.