View Full Version : Shaming and Proposition 8
In order not to hijack the AS thread similarly titled, I thought a discussion, considering the impact this ruling will have on DOD/DOA policy, I am placing this comment here.
In some fashion, shame has always been a cultural underpinning of societal norms; only recently, August 2nd,2010 I believe, has that been addressed properly in the America, with regard to the brilliant ruling delivered in the Northern District of California concerning proposition 8.
It gives me great pleasure to know, that the constitutional values which we cherish, have so intelligently and thoughtfully been reinforced, if not finally settled;reaffirming once again the separation of church and state, individual liberty, and individual unalienable rights
.
In this age of extremist views, it is of great comfort to know that the premise of our constitutional government remains as true today, as it did the day of its inception: "That all men are created equal"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL#fullscreen:on
It will surely make for exciting political theater as the case traverses the judicial system to be brought before the SCOTUS.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
craigepo
08-05-2010, 09:42
This fight could last for quite some time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1
The line in the sand continues to be drawn closer and closer to the cliff.
To start with I really don't care what to people do in their own home. I really don't care if they have a civil union - become a couple - share benifits, whatever.
This fight has been over the religious "marriage" not the civil union with all the same benifits.
The norm has moved again.
One of these days I'm going to show up at church and some guy is going to be getting married to his dog - after all, who are we to say whats right or wrong? Who are we to stand in the way of love? If two of God's creatures love each other...........
The Reaper
08-05-2010, 10:11
How is two men getting married or two women getting married a fundamental right, but a man marrying two women in a consenting relationship is illegal and unacceptable?
How long till the polygamy laws are ruled unconstitutional as well?
Why can a woman not legally marry her son, if they are both of legal age?
Why not allow pedophiles to marry their victims?
Should a man also be allowed to marry his sheep?
What is marriage?
Slippery slope here.
TR
steel_eel
08-05-2010, 10:17
One of these days I'm going to show up at church and some guy is going to be getting married to his dog
I never understood the usage of this in the gay marriage argument, simply on the basis that a non-human animal is not able to consent to a legal union such as marriage.
Green Light
08-05-2010, 10:42
I never understood the usage of this in the gay marriage argument, simply on the basis that a non-human animal is not able to consent to a legal union such as marriage.
If there is no societal definition of something, then it can have whatever meaning you want. Words must have meaning. The problem is that a small faction of society is trying to change a basic component of civilization into something else.
If I hold up a sphere and call it a cone, does it make it a cone just because I want it to be? No. When you control the language you control the argument.
Link. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1784010/the_redefining_of_polticial_speak_control.html)
I never understood the usage of this in the gay marriage argument, simply on the basis that a non-human animal is not able to consent to a legal union such as marriage.
Are you sure?
Its the lefties that state animals have just as many rights as humans.
But since you asked - you must not have a pet. Mine talk to me all the time. Yes and No are easy. "Do you what to go for a walk?" "Yes, Yes, Yes."
Just need to move the stick a little bit over to "here" and draw a new line and Shazaammm.
Some person asks their pet "Do you want to get married?" "Yes, Yes, Yes"
After all, who wants to stand in the way of true love?
I never understood the usage of this in the gay marriage argument, simply on the basis that a non-human animal is not able to consent to a legal union such as marriage.
They are also unable to consent to ownership. Yet millions of people own animals, and besides PETA, nobody seems to care how the animals feel about it.
steel_eel
08-05-2010, 11:44
Too many variables in this argument. It's almost as big of a headache as the abortion argument.
I'm employing this guy:
:munchin
or Jacko! (http://www.gifanatics.com/files/Jackson_popcorn.gif)
They are also unable to consent to ownership. Yet millions of people own animals, and besides PETA, nobody seems to care how the animals feel about it.
While I'm working let me walk over to the sofa, wake up my dog and ask him how he likes living with me. If he'd rather I could kick him out and let him chase his own supper down - instead of me putting it on his plate for him.
Red Flag 1
08-05-2010, 12:54
I could be wrong, but did not the voters of California vote in Proposition 8? The larger issue, as this FOG sees it, is one judge invalidating the choice of voters in California. So what is next....legal pot is my guess.
As Richard pointed out, this will be interesting theater, along with the ethics trials in the face of mid-term elections.
My $.02.
RF 1
GratefulCitizen
08-05-2010, 13:00
Curious when the federal judge will rule Title 1 Chapter 1 § 7 of the United States Code unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Was it Jay Leno who said?
"Since all men are created equal, who am I to deny homosexuals the misery of marriage..."
An attorney friend of mine was quick to point out the potentially lucrative niche of specializing in Gay divorce law, two male incomes...
Seriously though, this should be interesting to watch
greenberetTFS
08-05-2010, 14:24
How is two men getting married or two women getting married a fundamental right, but a man marrying two women in a consenting relationship is illegal and unacceptable?
How long till the polygamy laws are ruled unconstitutional as well?
Why can a woman not legally marry her son, if they are both of legal age?
Why not allow pedophiles to marry their victims?
Should a man also be allowed to marry his sheep?
What is marriage?
Slippery slope here.
TR
TR,
Do you recall the teacher,married with 3 kids was caught have sex with her 12 year old pupil !.....She gave up her family,spent several years in jail.......When she was released she married him.............It's already happening.............:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
The link I provided in the initial post will open to the full text of the ruling by Chief Justice Walker. I strongly encourage you to read the ruling. It is both informative as well as educational, from a social science perspective, it is detailed and relevant, a ruling which methodically encompasses the full socio-cultural argument. In a word, the ruling is enlightening, if not an examination and reaffirmation of our most cherished ideals concerning personal freedom. That’s an important distinction, because the argument employs strict scrutiny, as it applies to the 1st and 14th amendments.
Additionally, I must admit, that it puzzles me how on the one hand the islamist argument of submission requiring violent confrontation can be addressed, if unalienable right of personal freedoms are restricted? Is not the ruling one more reason why this society remains free and continues to be free?
The ruling is 136 pages long, I implore you to take the time to read what surly will become, a often quoted and resonating landmark document in American history.
The equation is: as belief systems, or Government expand, civil liberties retract.
Roguish Lawyer
08-05-2010, 15:56
I think the ruling is fabulous. ;)
RL, I am not up to speed with the happy face thing, is it possible you could elaborate ?
Roguish Lawyer
08-05-2010, 16:25
RL, I am not up to speed with the happy face thing, is it possible you could elaborate ?
You don't get the joke? Really?
You don't get the joke? Really?
Hint: Think big gay Al from South Park. :D
Really, like the whole face book thing, but what really eludes me is twitter. I don't get why so many people would post such inane dribble. The faces, most I get in context; yours confused me.
I don't watch much TV
Roguish Lawyer
08-05-2010, 16:42
Really, like the whole face book thing, but what really eludes me is twitter. I don't get why so many people would post such inane dribble. The faces, most I get in context; yours confused me.
I don't watch much TV
LOL, it is the "wink" face.
Therefore,you disagree with the ruling?
I made a serious post as to why I thought this is an important reaffirmation of our constitutional rights, based on MOO, of a full reading of the decision. A wink, as a comment, confuses me.
greenberetTFS
08-05-2010, 17:34
Therefore,you disagree with the ruling?
I made a serious post as to why I thought this is an important reaffirmation of our constitutional rights, based on MOO, of a full reading of the decision. A wink, as a comment, confuses me.
I'm with Penn on this one,guess I'm just showing my age!.......... :confused: Who is big gay Al from South Park? :(
Big Teddy :munchin
GratefulCitizen
08-05-2010, 17:40
Here's a little help.
It's all in the word: fabulous.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fabulous
craigepo
08-05-2010, 20:29
Enough of this Southpark crap. Let's throw some gas on this fire.
If the judge was gay, should he have recused himself? Does it cast any doubt on his ruling?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/judge-walker-is-gay-impartiality-in-question/
If the judge was gay, should he have recused himself? Does it cast any doubt on his ruling?
Your Honor,
In my layman's opinion, no it doesn't matter, by my read there was no discernible negative impact on the State for allowing such unions. If the judge was experienced, qualified, and there was basis in law ( for the experts to decide) I don't think his orientation should matter anymore than Justice Scalia ruling on cases involving Italian Americans. I think at some point we just have to go back to the notion we are all just Americans under our constitution without divisive qualifying prefixes.
Roguish Lawyer
08-05-2010, 22:20
Therefore,you disagree with the ruling?
I made a serious post as to why I thought this is an important reaffirmation of our constitutional rights, based on MOO, of a full reading of the decision. A wink, as a comment, confuses me.
I made a joke. Sorry if you didn't find it funny.
I am a libertarian and I don't think homosexuality is a choice, so I don't have a problem with the ruling. However, I don't like a lot of other policies advocated by the gay rights movement, particularly when it comes to interfering with the right of religious people to think and express the view that homosexuality is immoral and to raise their children accordingly without government interference. I also agree with the points about there being a slippery slope here.
To be clear, I reserve the right to make jokes at any time, in any thread, however serious the subject matter might be. ;) That's another wink for you, buddy. :)
Roguish Lawyer
08-05-2010, 22:22
Enough of this Southpark crap. Let's throw some gas on this fire.
If the judge was gay, should he have recused himself? Does it cast any doubt on his ruling?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/judge-walker-is-gay-impartiality-in-question/
I am told that Judge Walker is in fact gay, but I don't see that as a conflict. Does that mean a veteran can't preside over a Stolen Valor case, or a black judge can't hear a civil rights case? Would a Christian judge have to recuse himself too?
brokenvan
08-05-2010, 22:31
RL, I laughed.
And I agree with your statement regarding whether or not it's a choice, and I have come to the conclusion as well that it is not. I haven't met one that stated he or she chose to be gay. A few even tried being straight, but eventually couldn't force that upon themselves anymore.
Denying homosexuals the same rights as married, heterosexual couples is deplorable. Nor does it threaten the sanctity of heterosexual marriage or open the door for people to marry animals/plants/inanimate objects.
If the term "marriage" is really that much of a sticking point, rename it. Just ensure that they are granted the same rights.
GratefulCitizen
08-05-2010, 22:37
The institution of marriage, between a man and a woman, has enjoyed special privilege under law prior to the creation of the Constitution.
Presumption of paternity is still based on 500 year old English common law, without any allowances made for modern lifestyles or technology.
People cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse.
Can an unwilling witness suddenly, and temporarily, marry the accused to avoid the witness stand?
The ninth amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Why is there such a low standard to remove rights which predate the Constitution?
On a lighter note how could you in fact test for a gay judge, as opposed to a latino one or a veteran? The only thing I can think of is that scene from Mel Brooks History of the World where Gregory Hines is hiding out amongst the eunuchs and they have gorgeous dancing girls brushing up against all them to find him out. " Okay he's definitely a eunuch, him too, and that guy he may be dead...":)
Every opposing argument/question that has been presented, is addressed and answered in the ruling, in clear English, you do not need a law degree to navigate the decision.
Again, find your favorite chair, grab some ice tea and settle in for a good read. It truly is worth the time.
craigepo
08-06-2010, 10:21
Someone much more intelligent than myself will ultimately decide this issue. I did notice some interesting conclusions drawn in this judge's opinion:
1. There is no legitimate government interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposing-sex marriages;
2. Individuals do not choose their sexual orientation;
3. Children do not need to be raised by one male and one female parent to be well-adjusted;
4. California allows same-sex partnerships with almost all of the rights of a married couple, but withholding the designation "marriage" significantly disadvantages homosexual couples;
5. The homosexual marriage exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage. That time has passed;
6. The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
Obviously, some of these points open a "Pandora's box", not only for the present case, but for other types of cases as well.
incarcerated
08-06-2010, 23:18
I'm with Penn on this one,guess I'm just showing my age!.......... :confused: Who is big gay Al from South Park? :(
Big Teddy :munchin
Ted,
It is to your great credit that you do not know who the characters from South Park are. :D
The line in the sand continues to be drawn closer and closer to the cliff.
The norm has moved again.
About 35 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and was classified as a personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Nobody at the time could imagine that it would ever become legal, let alone a civil right. Hundreds of gay psychologists quietly lobbied for its removal from the DSM, which was a prerequisite for decriminalization. They quietly succeeded. Teachers then taught that is was acceptable. Judges then ruled that gays constituted a ‘sexual minority’ and needed protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today, it is pushed at our kids by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and is imbued with greater rights than the non-gay citizen receives. In most instances, it would be illegal to attempt to shame or otherwise harass a gay person, especially on campus or in the workplace. It is perhaps the most dramatic reversal of fortune achieved by the Left, to date.
IMO, the disturbing thing about the issue is the intolerance of the gay activists. When Prop 8 was up for a vote, only one local station was willing to show cowering Mormon women running a three-deep gauntlet of screaming Prop 8 opponents yelling epithets literally a few inches from the Mormons’ ears as they tried to exit their place of worship and make it to their cars on 35 yards of public sidewalk. (No cops around: wouldn’t it have been a hate crime had the roles been reversed?) Gay rights activists singled out Mormons for harsh treatment after learning that the Mormon church had contributed financially to the Pro-Prop 8 people. It bothers gay rights supporters not a whit that the will of the electorate is being trampled here, and that democracy is being shredded. Sometimes, your vote counts for nothing in California.
Judge Walker is gay, and cannot and should not be prevented from ruling on the case on that basis. If, however, Judge Walker is a gay rights activist (has contributed to or participated in gay rights causes), he lacks the impartiality to rule fairly on the case and has a conflict of interest. Does Judge Walker stand to benefit personally by a ruling against Prop 8? Activist judges are not generally bothered by such concerns. Is it true that he attempted to subpoena the personal writings of the Pro-Prop 8 people involved in the case? If so, it would be chilling. Would that mean I could damage my career by what I post here?
Where will the appetite for gay rights end? I don’t see an end in sight. Today, it is difficult to imagine pedophilia being decriminalized, but a quiet effort is under way to achieve this. It has already been removed from the DSM and is no longer a personality disorder. Are not child molesters simply another misunderstood sexual minority who we are discriminating against?
YMMV.
Entire post.Although I very strongly disagree with most of what you say in your post, please accept my thanks for your well-written and thought provoking comments.
MOO, there's a tendency to attribute certain types of behaviors to sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet, there are pushy and flamboyant people in all walks of life. Douchebaggery does not discriminate.*
Does the fact that we find some examples especially offensive while not raising an eyebrow at others say more about our perceptions than what we're perceiving?
__________________________________________
* If one has any doubts, take the MTA Gold line to Union Station and then the Red line to NoHo. A fracking United Nations of Douchebags. But I'm not bitter.
incarcerated
08-07-2010, 01:56
I did notice some interesting conclusions drawn in this judge's opinion:
1. There is no legitimate government interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposing-sex marriages;
2. Individuals do not choose their sexual orientation;
3. Children do not need to be raised by one male and one female parent to be well-adjusted;
4. California allows same-sex partnerships with almost all of the rights of a married couple, but withholding the designation "marriage" significantly disadvantages homosexual couples;
5. The homosexual marriage exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage. That time has passed;
6. The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
Obviously, some of these points open a "Pandora's box", not only for the present case, but for other types of cases as well.
What are the legal bases for these conclusions? The function of the judiciary is to make a legal ruling based on the law: it is not to engage in social engineering. In a free society, a judge does not decide what constitutes a legitimate government interest, what constitutes a well-adjusted child, that the time for distinct gender roles in society has passed, what the state should or should not advance, or what traditions the state should adhere to. In a free society, those are all prerogatives of the people. An activist judge who is willing to disregard the Constitutional rights and freedoms afforded to the electorate is merely exercising power, not justice. Walker rules more like an Imam than a judge.
The 'separate but equal' status (we all remember that term from other issues found in our nation's past history) created by the state's existing laws which allows them some benefits while also denying some of the benefits guaranteed to others is an important legal point made by the judge.
Richard :munchin
craigepo
08-07-2010, 07:55
What are the legal bases for these conclusions? .
These were his "findings of fact" that were the foundation for his ruling.
Trial courts(as opposed to appellate courts) find facts, then make rulings upon those facts. I found it quite interesting that, from all the testimony given in support of California's constitutional amendment, the judge could not find one shred of rational support for Prop 8.
A federal judge has a lot of power. However, to set aside centuries of traditional marriage-only laws, as irrational, is quite a leap.
TrapLine
08-07-2010, 08:04
I have yet to hear a convincing argument suggesting that traditional marriage as I know it does not provide stability and order within society. In an age of protected classes, is it wrong for me to think that there should be some effort to acknowledge the value of traditional marriage to the country?
............. to others is an important legal point made by the judge.
Richard :munchin
That can be stretched and stretched to cover just about anything a Judge wants to say it is.
We are about 5 years from our Federal Courts detaching from the Constitution and finding laws around the world that are a better fit to the Judge's personal views on an issue.
Pete
Wondering when "equal protection" will be given to cows - after all, they don't eat them in India - as a general rule for one religion.
Utah Bob
08-07-2010, 09:46
A federal judge has a lot of power. However, to set aside centuries of traditional marriage-only laws, as irrational, is quite a leap.
Setting aside centuries of traditional thought that the world was flat was quite a leap too.;)
Green Light
08-07-2010, 10:23
Setting aside centuries of traditional thought that the world was flat was quite a leap too.;)
Apples and oranges. What I'm trying to get someone to explain to me is the compelling interest of government to endorse homosexual marriage.
The judge in this case had to scrape the barrel to find a federal basis for overturning the will of the people in California. He used the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . .
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This was a reconstruction amendment. It calls for equal protection of the law and gives Congress the authority to enact enforcement legislation. The intent of the amendment was to give former slaves equal protections and to keep those who rebelled against the US from serving in government unless a two-thirds vote of both houses allowed it.
First, marriage law is a power of the state and is retained by the several states as dictated in the 10th Amendment. State laws offer marriage to all, as a union of two persons of the opposite sex. Gays and lesbians are not proscribed from marrying a person of the opposite sex. They choose not to. No unequal protection. There is no federal beef in this argument. All they are doing is going against the will of the people of California.
Homosexuals where originally looking for legal protections that were lost when the government enacted "privacy laws" that stipulated that only family members can do certain things in hospitals, etc.
Rather than government endorsing homosexual marriage and changing its basic definition of marriage (tradition has nothing to do with it), remove the legal restrictions and instead enable every citizen to make the decision on insurance beneficiaries, rights of inheritance, etc.
SparseCandy
08-07-2010, 10:54
Where will the appetite for gay rights end? I don’t see an end in sight. Today, it is difficult to imagine pedophilia being decriminalized, but a quiet effort is under way to achieve this. It has already been removed from the DSM and is no longer a personality disorder. Are not child molesters simply another misunderstood sexual minority who we are discriminating against?
YMMV.
I'm not sure what DSM you are looking at, but my copy of the DSM IV-TR (The most current) Lists Pedophilia as a paraphilia. It's section 302.2 specifically. It's also one of the most diagnosed of the paraphilias and considered the most harmful to society.
Where are you are getting the information that people are lobbying for it's removal? I read psychiatric times online and have read dozens of opinion articles on what should and should not be in the DSM V, scheduled to come out in 2012. If anything, the committee on sexual disorders for the DSM V are more conservative than the people who wrote the DSM IV - they are trying to increase medicalization of sexual behavior, not decrease it. I've not heard one mention of removing pedophilia. (I'm not saying someone out there hasn't said it, but it isn't being discussed by anyone with any sway.)
As for pedophilia not being a personality disorder, well, it shouldn't be a personality disorder. Personality disorders are disorders that affect several different aspects of personality and almost always create massive amounts of personal and social issues. If pedophilia was a personality disorder we wouldn't have such a problem - we could pick pedophiles out in a crowd just by their behavior and no acts of child molestation would ever be hidden.
Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is like equating people shooting guns on a range with people who go shoot up schools. One is a consentual behavior that harms no one. The other is non-consentual and ruins lives. Both involve sex (or guns) but that's as far as the comparison can reasonably go. It's apples and oranges.
incarcerated
08-07-2010, 14:30
These types of "gay rights" activists give a great many gays a bad name though. One will find bad apples in everything.
I would not be willing to dismiss this as simply an instance of a few bad actors. Both the anti-Prop 8 activists and judge Walker share the willingness to trample the rights of others in the cause of promoting their own rights. This is not rare. On the Left, the notion that the ends justify the means is, in my experience, commonplace, especially when it involves attacking American power, traditions and institutions.
Should the will of the people count here?
Why shouldn’t it? Why should one man be able to overrule the will of the people? This is an issue that the people put on the ballot, and which a majority voted for. Why should their right to vote be violated?
Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality.
Perhaps.
If you are willing to accept gays and transgender people as sexual minorities deserving of civil rights, how can you deny the same rights to other sexual minorities?
Green Light
08-07-2010, 15:16
If you are willing to accept gays and transgender people as sexual minorities deserving of civil rights, how can you deny the same rights to other sexual minorities?
The Constitution grants rights to individuals, not groups.
Incarcerated, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread, and as a result, I have a question: have you read the entire ruling by Chief Justice Walker?
Both the anti-Prop 8 activists and judge Walker share the willingness to trample the rights of others in the cause of promoting their own rights. Exactly how do your rights suffer from gays and lesbians getting hitched?Why shouldn’t it?I think American danced the "popular sovereignty" dance in the years leading up to the Civil War. It didn't work too well then. If you are willing to accept gays and transgender people as sexual minorities deserving of civil rights, how can you deny the same rights to other sexual minorities?Are you saying that American citizens should be denied their rights simply because of who they are? I disagree with that proposition.
craigepo
08-07-2010, 16:14
I think a collateral discussion might concern something along the lines of the following:
If homosexuals are born homosexual, and we therefore cannot legally prevent them from marrying, then how can we legislate against other similar marriage/sexual choices?
What about the polygamist? What about the person born with a desire for animals? Children? Are our culture's age-old prohibitions against such conduct as archaic as Judge Walker says the present prohibitions regarding homosexual conduct are?
Who decides? The people by popular referendum/constitutional amendment? Another unelected judge?
If the criteria for the law allowing homosexuals to marry is, essentially, that those folks are "born" that way, how do we craft a law that allows this, while also allowing a trial court judge to find a pedophile guilty of statutory rape, when the defendant says he was born with a predisposition to desire children?
Entire post.Judge--
IMO, the key issue is consent. Two adults can consent to this activity or that one (including getting married). By contrast, a child, by virtue of the fact that she is a child, can never consent to being molested by a pedophile.
I do wonder if formulating hypothetical examples centering around pedophilia and bestiality serves the political interests of those who oppose gay marriage. At times, these examples sound similar those offered in support of laws forbidding miscegenation and other forms of social integration.
My $0.02.
GratefulCitizen
08-07-2010, 17:03
In this country, a consenting adult has the right to marry one member of the opposite sex.
How is the right to do this denied to someone who is attracted to members of the same sex?
They are still legally entitled to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Where's the problem?
I think a collateral discussion might concern something along the lines of the following:
If homosexuals are born homosexual,
I am curious as to how many people believe this and simultaneously believe in evolution. :munchin
The Reaper
08-07-2010, 17:16
Judge--
IMO, the key issue is consent. Two adults can consent to this activity or that one (including getting married). By contrast, a child, by virtue of the fact that she is a child, can never consent to being molested by a pedophile.
I do wonder if formulating hypothetical examples centering around pedophilia and bestiality serves the political interests of those who oppose gay marriage. At times, these examples sound similar those offered in support of laws forbidding miscegenation and other forms of social integration.
My $0.02.
Sigaba:
Look out, here comes NAMBLA. :rolleyes:
Can you define a consistent application of age of consent? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18?
Should it vary from state to state or from county to county? Or from gender to gender? Why?
If homosexual marriage is acceptable to our society, why is polygamy not? As long as any number of women I can find who would consent to being one of my wives, why would that be wrong? Surely not morality anymore. Who is hurt if we are all consenting adults of age as specified in the previous paragraph?
TR
craigepo
08-07-2010, 17:57
Sigaba,
I was not trying to make a point either for or against gay marriage (although I realize that oftentimes my ideas are much better articulated in my head than they appear in print). My goal was to illustrate that, when a judge makes a ruling such as this, he necessarily issues several statements that will become "law". Thereafter, litigants will use one or more of these holdings for their own case.
One of the holdings made by the judge, for example, is that individuals do not choose their sexual orientation. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true, there will be other persons showing up in court, using this judge's ruling on this point to justify their own (sexual) position, whatever that might be.
Stated differently, I find troubling all of the "logical leaps" in this opionion. I find the present reasoning not unlike that found in Roe v. Wade. That case ultimately held that abortion is a constitutional right. Whether one is for or against abortion is irrelevant(for this argument); what is relevant is the legal reasoning used to hold that abortion is now a constitutional right, even though the word is never used in the Constitution. IMHO, it is in situations such as these that unelected judges must tread carefully to stay within their constitutionally-prescribed parameters.
Especially when striking down a constitutional amendment passed by a majority of a state's voters.
I do wonder if formulating hypothetical examples centering around pedophilia and bestiality serves the political interests of those who oppose gay marriage. At times, these examples sound similar those offered in support of laws forbidding miscegenation and other forms of social integration.
Is there credible data which indicates homosexuals or gay marriages have a greater proclivity towards child abuse or pedophilia than heterosexuals?
History has shown us society's social perceptions are often mired in unfledged callow stereotypes based on limited interaction. President Truman ordered the military to desegregate in 1948, and the Army officially began following through in 1951, interestingly well before America as a whole at Little Rock or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet the myth black troops couldn't fight or made poor soldiers had been debunked on numerous occasions dating from the Civil War through WW2. Whether the catalyst was increased familiarity and results or simply the dire situation on the ground in Korea at the time, we haven't looked back since. I'm sure there was an adjustment period, and have read of racial tension among draftees in Vietnam. These days however if a soldier proves his ability and character to his unit, does anyone really care about the color of his skin?
There is a lesbian couple living in my apartment building. They are both professionals and good neighbors. They have adopted a little girl from Vietnam and it's obvious she is loved and the apple of their eye, frankly she is best mannered kid in the building. She is respectful and loves playing with my dog. I think this kid is getting a great chance at a better life, because her parents are simply good people who care. IMO, stereotypes breakdown at the individual level.
The Reaper
08-07-2010, 21:41
Make marriage between two consenting adults, no more. Right now, it is for a man and a woman, so just extend it to two adults, and that's that.
:munchin
Why?
TR
GratefulCitizen
08-07-2010, 22:04
The problem is that they don't care if they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex because they are attracted to people of the same sex, so that is whom they want to marry.
There are plenty of men who are attracted to more than one woman.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry the additional women?
Many men already have illicit affairs, or are unmarried and have intimate relationships with many women.
Why not just extend the laws to cover them, too?
Shouldn't a mistress have the same rights as a wife?
What about bisexuals?
Aren't their feelings also being denied?
I believe most homosexuals are born that way and I believe in evolution.
How exactly does that trait come about through natural selection?
blacksmoke
08-07-2010, 23:17
Taking homosexuality off the DSM was probably more political than scientific. I am not a psychology profesional but I know that classifying a mental dissorder does not neccesarily have the implications to psychologists as is does to laypersons. For example, turrete syndrome is listed in the DSM, yet most people with turrets function just fine. The definition of dissorders being: "terms used to refer to a psychological or physiological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture." As you can see, homosexuality just may fit that definition, no sarcasm intended.
Also," In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal."
"This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
ZonieDiver
08-07-2010, 23:27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
I believe most homosexuals are born that way and I believe in evolution.
How exactly does that trait come about through natural selection?
Perhaps it is a recessive gene, carried forth because homosexuals have, in the past, married and had children in order to provide a 'cover' and fit in to society.
If so, allowing them to 'marry' each other will eventually 'end the problem'!
Roguish Lawyer
08-08-2010, 03:20
Homosexuality appears to be a genetic mutation causing unnatural behavior. I say "unnatural" because homosexual relations do not further reproduction, which is the natural reason for having sex. This may be offensive to homosexuals, but I think it is true. And I don't think these people are making a choice -- they are just born that way.
So what do we do with them? Should they be treated as second-class citizens because of who they are? To me, the key point in the opinion is that there are meaningful secular benefits associated with marriage. When you deny homosexuals the right to marry, you deprive them of economic and other rights that heterosexuals have. I don't see finding this to be a violation of equal protection as the same thing as the "penumbras" that led to Roe v. Wade. It's more like allowing blacks to sit where they want on the bus.
As for all of this history stuff, guess what? There is a long, long history of permitting slavery. Slavery was expressly recognized in the Constitution. People had slaves forever. Lots of people thought slavery was as American as apple pie for a long time.
There is no question about the slippery slope here. What's next? Fair point. But cases get decided one at a time, and I think the result here was the right one. Although I probably know more out-of-the-closet homosexuals than most people on this Board and count a lot of them as my friends, I will admit that I am totally grossed out by what they do. I think it is completely disgusting and I would like them to keep their sexual activities to themselves. But we have something called liberty in this country and we all are supposed to have it, even effeminate freaks who can't tell the difference between an exit and an entrance.
SparseCandy
08-08-2010, 10:48
Taking homosexuality off the DSM was probably more political than scientific. I am not a psychology profesional but I know that classifying a mental dissorder does not neccesarily have the implications to psychologists as is does to laypersons. For example, turrete syndrome is listed in the DSM, yet most people with turrets function just fine. The definition of dissorders being: "terms used to refer to a psychological or physiological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture." As you can see, homosexuality just may fit that definition, no sarcasm intended.
Also," In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal."
"This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
How can you quote from that website and still say the decision was more political than scientific? It would be wrong to say the decision didn't have political considerations, but it was more scientific. I'm not going to copy the whole website (people can read it) but there are 4 researchers to know when looking at the early science of homosexuality - Kinsey, Ford, Hooker, and Freedman.
The Kinsey studies came out in 1948 and 1953. For the first time there were numbers on how many people had engaged in homosexual behavior. Per Kinsey, 10% of men and 2-6% of the women were exclusively homosexual. That's way higher then was previously thought.
Then in 1951 the anthropologist Ford published an analysis of 76 different human societies and animal species. He found 64% had homosexuality behavior as normal or acceptable. This really opened the door to doubting the dominant view that homosexuality was a disease.
Evelyn Hooker published a study in 1957 where she recruited well adjusted gays and well adjusted straights and had them take various mental health tests without the tester knowing if they were gay or straight. She found no difference between them and concluded for the first time based on data that homosexuality was not a pathology, but a normal variation. Her study was more or less repeated to the same conclusion by Freedman in 1971. Hooker and Freedman are really the reason it was changed - their studies were done very well.
What that website doesn't cover but is still important is that in 1971 and 1972 Everitt and Herbert published studies where they injected testosterone into female rhesus monkeys that had been ovariectomized and watched their sex drives increase. They weren't studying homosexuality, but by that time Testosterone had been proven to increase masculine traits. By injecting monkeys without ovaries with it and watching them become sexually aroused they supported a clear working theory as to why people were homosexual - differences in naturally occuring hormones. (This theory was first supported when Pheiffer transplanted testes into neonatal female rats back in 1936.) They were wrong - lesbians don't have higher testosterone rates than non-lesbians. But psychologists are all about the why and they helped give a why to Hooker and Freedman's work.
All this directly refutes the claim that homosexuality fits the definition of a mental disorder. To be a disorder, the condition has to cause disability or distress (or directly cause harm to another person, which covers things like antisocial disorder.) Social shunning doesn't count and if you remove that, gays are no more disabled than you or I. It's the same reason geniuses aren't listed as a mental disorder. They are different and rare, but that difference doesn't disable them. It's also why tourette's IS a disorder. Most people learn to adapt to it, but having multiple uncontrollable bodily tics is definitely distressing.
incarcerated
08-08-2010, 10:50
These were his "findings of fact" that were the foundation for his ruling.
Trial courts(as opposed to appellate courts) find facts, then make rulings upon those facts. I found it quite interesting that, from all the testimony given in support of California's constitutional amendment, the judge could not find one shred of rational support for Prop 8.
Thank you for the clarification.
The findings of fact look like something out of a Sociology class, which is something I am not particularly comfortable with.
It would not be in the interests of Judge Walker or his ruling for him to have found rational support for Prop 8. More on that later.
Your input is invaluable.
I'm not sure what DSM you are looking at, but my copy of the DSM IV-TR (The most current) Lists Pedophilia as a paraphilia.
Where are you are getting the information that people are lobbying for it's removal?
By talking to pedophiles. No, it is not something that I do regularly, or have done a lot, or have done recently.
I do not own a DSM, and the ones at work are probably also recent. Thus, I cannot immediately cite an older edition to support my assertion that Pedophilia was once a personality disorder. If it is your recollection that it has always been a perihelia, and that this current status does not represent a downgrade or change in the pedophilia’s status in the last thirty years, I will defer to your memory and stand corrected.
Incarcerated, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread, and as a result, I have a question: have you read the entire ruling by Chief Justice Walker?
No, I have not, beyond a quick review. Can you refer me to specific pages or passages that you would like to take up?
Exactly how do your rights suffer from gays and lesbians getting hitched?I
Are you saying that American citizens should be denied their rights simply because of who they are?
I do wonder if formulating hypothetical examples centering around pedophilia and bestiality serves the political interests of those who oppose gay marriage.
My rights suffer if my vote is nullified. (No, I didn’t vote for or against it.) The more I think about it, the less this issue may have to do with actual gay marriage. More to follow on that.
No, I am not saying that American citizens should be denied their rights simply because of who they are. But if rights should not be denied because of who one is, why should they be granted because of who one is? Rights and ‘who one is’ are connected primarily in Identity Politics, which I am not a fan of. More on that, too, in just a moment.
The Gay and Lesbian movements have been working to distance themselves politically from NAMBLA and pedophilia since the early 1980s. In the same fashion, the President has sought to distance himself from a few of the more controversial elements of his former constituencies and past life. The practice is simply a political necessity. It is my belief that this is why we do not hear a clamor for pedophile rights, and that they are much farther down in the course of their ’progress’ towards realizing full inclusion and acceptance as a sexual minority and the achievement of their civil rights.
That said, you have identified the critical weakness in the Pedophilia component of my argument: it is hypothetical. As a hypothetical, it can be dismissed. I believe it would serve the purpose of this discussion better if we did so. This has been a very civil thread. In the end, I do not expect to change anyone’s mind: we will simply agree to disagree.
The Constitution grants rights to individuals, not groups.
This, for me, is the core issue.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 bestow new rights not enumerated in the Constitution (e.g. freedom from offensive speech, freedom from exclusion, from harassment and intolerance etc.) to people based on their group membership. Some individuals belong to more than one protected group, and thus receive more rights and protections than others. These group rights tend to trump Constitutional rights (free speech, voting rights, freedom of association). Equality is out the window. In classic Orwellian fashion, the Left calls it ’the Level Playing Field.”
Having eclipsed the Bill of Rights’ individual rights and put us on a group rights footing, the Left has produced an environment of competing groups in a zero sum game. You can only give rights to a group by taking rights away from someone else. In effect, it is a rights transfer, with one half of the political spectrum loosing rights, and the other half gaining them.
blacksmoke
08-08-2010, 13:38
All this directly refutes the claim that homosexuality fits the definition of a mental disorder. To be a disorder, the condition has to cause disability or distress (or directly cause harm to another person, which covers things like antisocial disorder.) Social shunning doesn't count and if you remove that, gays are no more disabled than you or I. It's the same reason geniuses aren't listed as a mental disorder. They are different and rare, but that difference doesn't disable them. It's also why tourette's IS a disorder. Most people learn to adapt to it, but having multiple uncontrollable bodily tics is definitely distressing.
Distressing or outside of natural progression, e.g. you can not make children from sex as Rougish Lawyer stated above. I know a couple people with turrets that are not distressed at all from it, and it's still classified as a disorder. My point was reitterated in the article I quoted from saying that durring the "sexual revolutuion" attitudes and ideas about homosexuality changed, and some seeked to have it removes only to have it reclassified as "ego-dystonic homosexuality" for those who wished to persue heterosexual relationships. There are a large number of homosexuals who want to adopt which, to me, highlights the desire to reproduce.
blacksmoke
08-08-2010, 13:39
I would also like to note that there are several definitions for mental dissorder out there.
incarcerated
08-08-2010, 13:56
As for all of this history stuff, guess what? There is a long, long history of permitting slavery. Slavery was expressly recognized in the Constitution. People had slaves forever. Lots of people thought slavery was as American as apple pie for a long time.
I am not sure that slavery and homosexuality are good equivalents or analogous here. At least, some of the descendants of slavery don’t think so.
I don't think these people are making a choice -- they are just born that way.
So what do we do with them?
This is the question my argument takes us to. Put differently, if you agreed with everything I said (please don’t: do your own thinking), you would be left with that question.
MOO, the people that we meet, we treat and regard as individuals. In doing this, we eliminate discrimination. The two lesbian moms next door are Sally and Betty (or whatever their names), not “the two lesbian moms next door.” I do not expect agreement between myself and very many of the people who come my way, but I expect to be able to get along with all of them, with very little exception.
My regard for mass political movements that teach and are based on racial, gender or sexual identity is different. IMO these groups produce racism, sexism and hostility by design, by indoctrinating and grooming their members, supporters, and very often students (not rightly within their purview) to hold racialized or sexist views and perspectives on society and other people. To draw one’s identity from one’s race (which no one has a choice of) is to stereotype yourself. MOO, such political movements deserve our opposition.
YMMV.
My rights suffer if my vote is nullified
Can we vote to make Armenians were gold stars or send Norwegians to the back of the metaphorical bus?
The vote is "nullified" due to the judge finding that the thing that was voted on was unconstitutional.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 bestow new rights not enumerated in the Constitution (e.g. freedom from offensive speech, freedom from exclusion, from harassment and intolerance etc.) to people based on their group membership. Some individuals belong to more than one protected group, and thus receive more rights and protections than others. These group rights tend to trump Constitutional rights (free speech, voting rights, freedom of association). Equality is out the window. In classic Orwellian fashion, the Left calls it ’the Level Playing Field.”
Having eclipsed the Bill of Rights’ individual rights and put us on a group rights footing, the Left has produced an environment of competing groups in a zero sum game. You can only give rights to a group by taking rights away from someone else. In effect, it is a rights transfer, with one half of the political spectrum loosing rights, and the other half gaining them.
Astounding :eek: - but offers a perfect segue into this idea:
Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.
Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-keohane_0808edi.State.Edition1.12dcc67.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Yeah, the people in Kelo vs the City of New London thought they had some rights........
Until some black robed folks said "Nope, we found something new."
Hows that development coming City of New London?
Green Light
08-08-2010, 15:41
In classic Orwellian fashion, the Left calls it ’the Level Playing Field.”
I personally have no problem with a level playing field. That's only fair - everyone should have the same opportunity.
What I have a problem with is the enforced final score. Enforced equality of outcome is inequality. That's where the tyranny of the black robes comes into play, not to mention the lies of the progressives in both the Republican and Democrat Parties. They're up to their elbows in it. And the Constitution isn't a stumbling block.
SparseCandy
08-08-2010, 17:19
By talking to pedophiles. No, it is not something that I do regularly, or have done a lot, or have done recently.
I do not own a DSM, and the ones at work are probably also recent. Thus, I cannot immediately cite an older edition to support my assertion that Pedophilia was once a personality disorder. If it is your recollection that it has always been a perihelia, and that this current status does not represent a downgrade or change in the pedophilia’s status in the last thirty years, I will defer to your memory and stand corrected.
I don't know if Pedophilia was ever a personality disorder. The point is, if it was it was miscategorized. It isn't making it less of an offense to catagorize it correctly. Mental health doesn't work that way - depression isn't somehow better or worse than antisocial disorder. They are disorders with different symptoms and different methods of treatment. That's it.
Distressing or outside of natural progression, e.g. you can not make children from sex as Rougish Lawyer stated above. I know a couple people with turrets that are not distressed at all from it, and it's still classified as a disorder. My point was reitterated in the article I quoted from saying that durring the "sexual revolutuion" attitudes and ideas about homosexuality changed, and some seeked to have it removes only to have it reclassified as "ego-dystonic homosexuality" for those who wished to persue heterosexual relationships. There are a large number of homosexuals who want to adopt which, to me, highlights the desire to reproduce.
The plural of ancedote is not data. I can find examples of every disorder both mental and physical out there who claim not to be distressed by their condition - that does not prove that the majority of people who suffer from the condition are not distressed. If the majority show that they aren't distressed than the disorder needs to be removed from the DSM. That's exactly what happened with homosexuality.
Outside of natural progression was not in the definition of disorder you pulled because it is not a valid qualifier for if something should be medicalized. As a future psychologist, I can't assume to know what is or is not 'natural' behavior. I can only judge behavior on the basis of its distress to the person experiencing it or the people around them. This is a critical distinction - it helps keep me from allowing my own biases from declaring someone sick just because I think they are weird. I cannot ethically declare you sick just because I think what you do is disgusting or immoral. I can only declare you sick if you tell me you are distressed by what you are doing, or if others can prove you are harmed by your actions, or if you are harming others by your actions.
Obsessively collecting postage stamps is not a disorder, even though it doesn't serve any 'natural' purpose. It doesn't become a disorder until you decide that it is negatively impacting your life and seek help or until you start mugging people on the street for their postage.
Politics helped get homosexuality removed from the DSM, but it was only speeding up an inevitable change. Hooker and Freedman showed through research that the majority of homosexuals were exactly the same as the majority of heterosexuals - that preferring your same gender for a roll in the hay did not indicate any underlying pathology.
The Reaper
08-08-2010, 18:30
Sir, why not when they become an adult, eighteen?
I'd say no, isn't a person considered an adult (where they can have sexual relations with someone older than eighteen) at eighteen nationwide?
Then a HS senior having sex with a junior is okay? How about a freshman?
No, each states sets the legal age of consent in their respective states. IIRC, it ranges from 14 or so to 18. Do you think all 14 y/o, or 18 y/o are mature enough to enter into marriage?
Why not?:confused: Marriage was originally for two people, a man and a woman, but if two people of the same sex wish to be married, why not?? That isn't polygamy, pedophilia, or beastiality.
I would say that you are cherry picking the options.
If marriage is between a man and a woman, then allowing two men to marry makes no more sense to me that letting a man and two women marry. Is the gender more critical than the number?
And there is ample historical evidence to support legal polygamous relationships, in fact, better than gay marriage.
TR
Peregrino
08-08-2010, 19:09
Polygamy is probably overrated, one wife is expensive enough (unless the wives are supporting the husband :p). Having tried juggling more than one girlfriend at various times during my misspent youth, I can't imagine the complications of having them all together under one roof. NTM - if we're exploring options I'm sure some of our female members could also make compelling arguments for polyandry. Again - the historical precedents exist. What is or isn't acceptable? Where are the lines? At some point society has to have defensible interests for controlling behaviour outside of societal norms.
Dozer523
08-08-2010, 22:05
We have chosen a number of arbitrary ages for a number of milestones without really proving that those of that age are mature enough to appreciate or exercise the permissions grated at those ages. consider these: 5 to attend Kindergarten, 11 to join Boy Scouts, 16 to drive a car, 18 to vote and or enter a contract, 21 to drink.
Marriage is a partnership. Among other things it's an economic transaction . . . (ask someone going through a divorce). Why can't we let people who want to form private partnerships do it and enjoy the pros and cons of that economic choice? Unless we think marriage is really all about religion. opps . . . or are we talking about sin?
Marriage is a partnership. Among other things it's an economic transaction . . . (ask someone going through a divorce). Why can't we let people who want to form private partnerships do it and enjoy the pros and cons of that economic choice? Unless we think marriage is really all about religion. opps . . . or are we talking about sin?
But in California it was allowed - Domestic Partners enjoyed all the benefits that Married people do. That argument won't hold water.
Roguish Lawyer
08-08-2010, 23:09
But in California it was allowed - Domestic Partners enjoyed all the benefits that Married people do. That argument won't hold water.
The Court heard testimony on this issue and concluded otherwise, not irrationally.
Dozer523
08-09-2010, 05:53
But in California it was allowed - Domestic Partners enjoyed all the benefits that Married people do. That argument won't hold water. Sure it does (hold water). ultimately, it will all come down to equal protection under law. If what sets you apart is not unlawful then you cannot be denied that which others are entitled.
Sin isn't necessarily illegal.
Sin isn't necessarily illegal
Sin has nothing to do with state interest, as in: "Give unto Caesar that things that are Caesar's".
The Court heard testimony on this issue and concluded otherwise, not irrationally.
I understand the court heard that testimony and I believe they ruled incorrectly based on the fact gay couples can have all the benefits under the law that married couples have. I had this discussion with a constitutional attorney who actually believes in gay marriage but said the judge didn't apply the law correctly.
Gays (in CA) were already protected under the color of law but the judge wanted to make an activist stand.
As mentioned before, if a gay man /woman has a right to marry, then why doesn't a polygamist have the right to marry?
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman. And this isn't a Christian thing, it first started in Code of Hammurabi from Babylon. Granted it didn't specify one woman but it was the law she was bound to her husband.
Same sex unions have been recognized even in ancient history but they were never considered marriage - just unions. The Theodosian Code actually banned gay unions in Rome (350AD) - so in order to ban them, they were obviously occurring.
If the traditional marriage definition doesn't apply anymore, shouldn't everyone (even the ones who aren't socially accepted) be provided protection under the law?
Perhaps a new tactic should be a guy shows up to apply for a marriage license with 12 women who all want to marry him. Or with a dog/horse/sheep to marry..
Dozer523
08-09-2010, 09:06
Sin has nothing to do with state interest, as in: "Give unto Caesar that things that are Caesar's". I disagree. this is all about "sin", social norms, NIMBY etc. Because, as has been stated here in this thread, when it all comes down to it, it is not the individuals who are scrutinized but the physical acts in which they engage; most often within the fourth amendment protected sanctity -- nice word eh -- of their private property.
As for the concern about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. . . you might be thinking of priesthood.
Dozer 1956 -
BA (PolSci) Gonzaga U 1979
BA (ED) Gonzaga U 2001
SJ:p
Surf n Turf
08-09-2010, 10:22
I’ve read the decision, and am “uncomfortable” with the “auto da fé” flavor of the opinion. Our version of justice also has men in robes.
I probably don’t have a problem with the Judges sexual orientation in ruling on this case, but I do object when said Judge appears to be an activist. Case in point -- that wanted “his” trial” broadcast before the world.(see below). “to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile show trial.”
Understand, I don’t have a dog in this fight – I’ll be long dead before my grand children deal with consequences, if any.
It is most worrisome though, that a single person, in this case an appointed federal judge, can nullify the votes of more than 7,000,000 California voters, and 6,000 years worth of historical and societal preferences, of Marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman, based on his assertions of facts. This case may be appealed before the Supreme Court and change America’s culture and values ---
When those behind a polarizing cause find that reality and common sense conflict with their position, what do they do? They simply get some "experts" to "deem" their position to be true!
The state already regulates who may enter into marriage. Currently excluded are Brothers/Sisters, Mothers / Sons, and Fathers / Daughters – Do we wish to sanction these “unions”, or is the state correct in it’s prohibition (and are these “persons” discriminated against).
This damn thing is going to be settled just like Roe V Wade, by the Courts instead of the Legislatures, and will lead to decades of rancor that would be avoided IF we forced those we elect to take a stand (on one side or the other) and stop this legislation by judicial fiat.
I still do not understand how our Constitution can support diametrically opposed findings divined from our highest courts and based on political ideology.
American Spectator has probably summed up the final results --- “conventional assumption that the court's "liberal" and "conservative" wings will split predictably, 4-4. the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/06/yes-the-prop-8-decision-could
SnT
Judge Vaughn Walker concludes that Californians had no rational basis to vote for Proposition 8 --- and the following:
Only men and women are capable of marrying each other — is nothing but a “private moral view” that provides no conceivable “rational basis” for legislation
Tradition alone cannot be the rational basis for a law. So it doesn't matter that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union
Gay men and lesbians aren't seeking a new right under the Constitution. They just want to exercise their fundamental right to marry.
They have the right to marry in part because the state's never required marriage to be based on the ability to procreate.
People can't be excluded from marriage because of gender. "That time has passed”
It’s “beyond debate” that gay marriage “has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on marriage.”
It is “beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
History
On Dec. 21, 2010, a coalition of media companies requested permission from the Northern California district court to televise the then-upcoming Prop 8 trial. Two days after this request, the court (Judge Vaughn Walker) posted a proposed amendment to Civil Local Rule 77-3 on its website. Rule 77-3 had previously banned the recording or broadcast of court proceedings in Northern California's federal courts, but the new rule created an exception to allow "for participation in a pilot or other project authorized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit." Comments on the proposed revision were to be submitted by Jan. 8, 2010.
On Jan. 4, 2010, the District Court (Judge Vaughn Walker) revised its website to state that the new Rule was "effective December 22, 2009 . . . pursuant to the 'immediate need' provision" of 28 U.S.C. § 2071(e), which states that if a court "determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment."
On Jan. 6, 2010, the district court (Judge Vaughn Walker) held a hearing regarding the recording and broadcasting of the Prop 8 trial, and filed an order the next day requesting that 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski permit the trial to be broadcast live via streaming audio and video to federal courthouses around the country, which he did.
Enter the SCOTUS Jan. 13, 2010
The Court issued a 5-4 per curiam opinion ruling that a California district court had not properly amended its rules to allow for broadcast of the trial, and that because the dispute over the California ballot measure involves "issues subject to intense debate in our society," it was "not a good [case] for a pilot program," since it was unclear what the effects of cameras on such a high-profile case would be.
the Court stated, its review was solely to determine whether the district court's amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial to other federal courthouses complied with federal law. "We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court's actions," the opinion stated. The Court granted the defendant's requested stay, prohibiting the broadcasting of the trial. The Court also stated that participation in the 9th Circuit's pilot program "does not qualify as an immediate need that justifies dispensing with the notice and comment procedures required by federal law," since "no party alleged that it would be imminently harmed if the trial were not broadcast." This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast.. . . Some of applicants' witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment.. . . the opinion continued. "While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast."
Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the trial, had also been attempting to have the trial broadcast live on the Internet, but a Jan. 15, 2010 Associated Press (AP) story reported that he abandoned this effort after the release of the Supreme Court's decision.
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/index.php?entry=237026
CarreraGT
08-09-2010, 11:59
I have a couple things to add that I haven't seen mentioned/covered yet:
1. Under the rules of a Domestic Partnership, heterosexuals are not elligible. Only members of the same sex (as well as an exception dealing with opposite-sex individuals of elderly ages) can enter into a Domestic Partnership. So, my wife and I had been together for 5 years before we got married. If we wanted to enjoy the legal/medical/etc benefits of our relationship, the ONLY option available to us was to get married. We were not eligible for the program that existed for homosexual couples.
In this instance, it makes me feel that 'If I can't have theirs, why should they have mine?". Will Domestic Partnerships still exist, if Gay Marriage is allowed? If so, then you have created multiple options for the gay community to obtain legal rights with their significant others, while 'hampering' straight couples with only one outlet to achieve the same status. Activism vaulting the minority, not just equal to, but OVER the majority.
2. My wife works with a woman whos sister is gay, has a partner, and they adopted a girl. Said daughter is now in her mid-teens, and her aunt was telling my wife that she is having major problems right now; she is straight, and is seriously worried that if she doesn't become gay, her mother won't love her.
I know, people will say "what about gay children that are scared their straight parents won't love them". Fair point, but we then have to turn to the idea of minorities... If the homosexual community is, in fact, such a minority, then you have opened the door for a majority to be pressured by a minority. The minority, by definition, will always feel somewhat pressured by the majority; it is a simple fact of life. And this is not limited to the color of your skin, or the religious beliefs in your heart. Look at what happened to certain groups of white immigrants, when 'No Irish need apply'.
You will never make a minority truly comfortable and completely equal. The Constitution understand this, hence the reason it is designed to PROTECT the minority from the majority, not FORCE the minority into equal, and in some cases (read: affirmative action), superior positions in society.
Dave
blacksmoke
08-09-2010, 14:40
If the majority show that they aren't distressed than the disorder needs to be removed from the DSM. That's exactly what happened with homosexuality.
Ego-dystonic homosexuality has also been removed. Not trying to be a smart ass, but imagine interviewing drug users only to find that they are not distressed over their habits. Does that not mean drug dependence is not a disorder?
Politics helped get homosexuality removed from the DSM, but it was only speeding up an inevitable change.
My point is that politics had more to do with it, obviously you feel otherwise.
blacksmoke
08-09-2010, 14:41
I understand the court heard that testimony and I believe they ruled incorrectly based on the fact gay couples can have all the benefits under the law that married couples have. I had this discussion with a constitutional attorney who actually believes in gay marriage but said the judge didn't apply the law correctly.
Gays (in CA) were already protected under the color of law but the judge wanted to make an activist stand.
As mentioned before, if a gay man /woman has a right to marry, then why doesn't a polygamist have the right to marry?
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman. And this isn't a Christian thing, it first started in Code of Hammurabi from Babylon. Granted it didn't specify one woman but it was the law she was bound to her husband.
Same sex unions have been recognized even in ancient history but they were never considered marriage - just unions. The Theodosian Code actually banned gay unions in Rome (350AD) - so in order to ban them, they were obviously occurring.
If the traditional marriage definition doesn't apply anymore, shouldn't everyone (even the ones who aren't socially accepted) be provided protection under the law?
Perhaps a new tactic should be a guy shows up to apply for a marriage license with 12 women who all want to marry him. Or with a dog/horse/sheep to marry..
Haven't we all seen Chuck & Larry?
SparseCandy
08-09-2010, 18:00
Ego-dystonic homosexuality has also been removed. .
That's because attaching homosexuality to the end of ego-dystonic is silly - you can be heterosexual and still suffer the symptoms of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. All it means is that your sexual identity is known but you are distressed by it and wish to change it. (It translates to spasms of the ego which is really fuzzy and poorly defined anyway.)
Besides, removing it from the DSM is actually a nod to the conservative school of thought that sexual orientation is a choice. If you leave ego-dystonic homosexuality in as a disorder you are saying that homosexuals cannot change their orientation, and that the homosexuals who are exceptionally distressed by their homosexuality are suffering from a mental disorder that should be corrected. Of course, psychologists who wish to diagnose this are still able - they just list it as "sexual disorder not otherwise specified."
Not trying to be a smart ass, but imagine interviewing drug users only to find that they are not distressed over their habits. Does that not mean drug dependence is not a disorder?.
Remember there are three criteria - the patient feels she is harmed, the patient harms others, or we can prove that the patient is harming herself but doesn't realize it. This last criteria needs to be applied conservatively but in the case of drugs certainly has enough data to support it. Homosexuality on the other hand is the exact opposite - all research points to zero harm from being homosexual. That's why it was removed.
Also, to diagnose drug dependence someone must demonstrate at least 3 of 7 symptoms:
Withdrawl
Tolerance
Repeated self-identified overuse
Failed attempts to curb use
Recurrent use despite self identified reoccurring negative consequences of the drug use
Loss of important social, occupational, or recreational activities
Committing a great deal of time toward obtaining the drug.
Notice that all of these require some harm.
In short, despite all the data on how harmful drugs are, we STILL can't just diagnose someone with drug abuse based on casual usage of an illegal substance. Casual drug usage is not a mental disorder. Dependence and all the harm associated with it is.
My point is that politics had more to do with it, obviously you feel otherwise.
Yup. :) Regardless of the politics that led to its removal from the DSM, the argument that it should be included doesn't have anything to support it. So it doesn't really matter why it was initially removed, just that it was correctly pulled out.
I've posted enough now that I'm in direct violation of my goal to sit back, shut up, listen and learn from all the heroes on this site. I'm more than happy to discuss this in PM, but I think I've used up enough of their bandwith in here.
Thank you for the conversation.
GratefulCitizen
08-09-2010, 20:14
It is most worrisome though, that a single person, in this case an appointed federal judge, can nullify the votes of more than 7,000,000 California voters, and 6,000 years worth of historical and societal preferences, of Marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman, based on his assertions of facts. This case may be appealed before the Supreme Court and change America’s culture and values ---
When those behind a polarizing cause find that reality and common sense conflict with their position, what do they do? They simply get some "experts" to "deem" their position to be true!
The state already regulates who may enter into marriage. Currently excluded are Brothers/Sisters, Mothers / Sons, and Fathers / Daughters – Do we wish to sanction these “unions”, or is the state correct in it’s prohibition (and are these “persons” discriminated against).
This damn thing is going to be settled just like Roe V Wade, by the Courts instead of the Legislatures, and will lead to decades of rancor that would be avoided IF we forced those we elect to take a stand (on one side or the other) and stop this legislation by judicial fiat.
It is ironic that this whole issue has to do with protecting the rights of a few.
With this issue, and others, a handful of people who hold various offices are imposing their will on the masses.
Oppression of the majority.
One of the ways governments retain their power is through legitimacy, as perceived by the governed.
When they no longer have that legitimacy, to what other tools will they turn?
It is ironic that this whole issue has to do with protecting the rights of a few.MOO, what is "ironic" is the supposition that the configuration of political and social power in America has ever been anything else but small groups of "haves" protecting their best interests against incursions by "have nots."
IMO, societal practices and cultural norms are constructs built through hegemony. Should we get bent out of shape wondering why this group is swinging elbows high to get a place at a table and 'imposing' its values on us?* Or should we also ask ourselves why that swinging is necessary in the first place?
My $0.02.
_________________________________________
* Candidly and with all due respect, I just don't comprehend this notion of people imposing their values on others in this day and age.:confused: Maybe I am missing something but no one imposes any idea / concept / belief / practice / praxis on me unless I let them. And as I am even tempered (read: always pissed off), that just doesn't happen.
Peregrino
08-10-2010, 06:10
It is ironic that this whole issue has to do with protecting the rights of a few.
With this issue, and others, a handful of people who hold various offices are imposing their will on the masses.
Oppression of the majority.
One of the ways governments retain their power is through legitimacy, as perceived by the governed.
When they no longer have that legitimacy, to what other tools will they turn?
Lenin said it best - "'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
What are the legal bases for these conclusions? The function of the judiciary is to make a legal ruling based on the law: it is not to engage in social engineering. In a free society, a judge does not decide what constitutes a legitimate government interest, what constitutes a well-adjusted child, that the time for distinct gender roles in society has passed, what the state should or should not advance, or what traditions the state should adhere to. In a free society, those are all prerogatives of the people. An activist judge who is willing to disregard the Constitutional rights and freedoms afforded to the electorate is merely exercising power, not justice. Walker rules more like an Imam than a judge.
These thoughts on the matter from former Judge Souter might be of interest to some here.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Are Liberal Judges Really 'Judicial Activists'?
Time, 9 June 2010
"Judicial activism" is the No. 1 conservative talking point on the law these days. Liberal judges, the argument goes, make law, while conservative judges simply apply the law as it is written.
It's a phony claim. Conservative jurists are every bit as activist as liberal ones. But the critique is also wrong as an approach to the law. In fact, judges always have to interpret vague clauses and apply them to current facts — it's what judging is all about.
That point was eloquently made by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter during a speech at Harvard University's 359th commencement last month.
To hear conservatives tell it, America has long been under attack by liberal judges who use vague constitutional clauses to impose their views. This criticism took off in the 1950s and '60s, when federal judges were an important driving force in dismantling racial segregation.
Conservatives say that courts should defer to the decisions made by Congress, the President and state and local officials — the democratically elected parts of government. When they interpret the Constitution, they should apply the plain words and original intent of the framers. If they do, conservatives insist, the right result will be obvious.
In his address at Harvard, Souter explained why this cardboard account of the judge's role "has only a tenuous connection to reality."
It is rarely the case, Souter pointed out, that a constitutional claim can be resolved by mechanically applying a rule. It's not impossible: if a 21-year-old tried to run for the Senate, a judge could simply invoke the constitutional requirement that a Senator must be at least 30. But many constitutional guarantees, like the rights of due process and equal protection, were deliberately written to be open-ended and in need of interpretation.
Another problem with the mechanistic approach is that the Constitution contains many rights and duties that are in tension with one another. In 1971, the court considered the Pentagon Papers case, in which the government tried to block the New York Times and the Washington Post from printing classified documents about the Vietnam War. The court didn't have one principle to apply — it had two. The First Amendment argued for allowing publication, while national security weighed against it.
The Supreme Court, rightly, came out on the side of the newspapers. But it struck many people as a difficult case to decide. As Souter noted, "a lot of hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another."
Conservatives like to make judging sound easy and uncomplicated. At his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts said he would act as an "umpire," applying the rules rather than making them, remembering that "it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."
It was a promise that did not last long past the Senate's vote to confirm him. Roberts and the rest of the court's five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses.
In a 2007 case, the conservative majority overturned voluntary racial integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Good idea or bad, the programs were adopted by local officials who had to answer to voters. But the conservative Justices had no problem invoking the vague words of the Equal Protection Clause to strike them down.
Earlier this year, in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, the court's conservatives struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from spending on federal elections. Once again, they relied on a vaguely worded constitutional guarantee.
In the process, they flouted the will of the people. After the ruling, a poll found that 80% of Americans opposed the ruling — 65% "strongly." The decision was as anti-democratic as any liberal ruling that conservatives have ever complained about.
A few years ago, a law professor at the University of Kentucky methodically examined the votes of the Justices, applying objective standards. She found that the court's conservatives were at least as activist as the liberals.
When Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings begin later this month, there are likely to be more charges that she would be a judicial activist. Souter's Harvard address was a timely reminder of how meaningless such accusations really are.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1995232,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation-related
Are Liberal Judges Really 'Judicial Activists'?
Time, 9 June 2010
I'm shocked, shocked I say to see article such as this written by a former lawyer for the SPLC.