Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Stinicker wrote: »
    As a man marrying a woman then no.

    So it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact it is a spiritual thing (to some people) then? If not why did you bring that up?


  • Options
    #63
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is a good question, but the question largely revolves around the assumption that marriage was always broader than a structured relationship between a man and a woman and the basis for a family unit.

    It doesn't actually.

    It's a general question. Should your fundamental rights be subject to popular approval?

    In this case though, my understanding of the background is that it was found to be a right in this context. They did have this right. 18000 marriage licenses were subsequently issues to same-sex couples. Then Prop-8 came along and legislated to take away that right.


  • Options
    #64
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    gizmo wrote: »
    Until quite recently in history mental illnesses were dealt with by either locking someone up in a mental asylum for the rest of their lives or cutting out part of their brain. In short, times change and people's understandings change. In this case, it's been, for the most part at least, for the better.


    Um, because paedophilia is wrong. To be honest, it says a lot about a person when they start comparing that to homosexuality.

    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.


  • Options
    #65
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional
    Passage of the proposed Amendment failed 236 yea votes to 187 nay votes

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



    Am I right here in saying the judge discribed the ban as unconstitutional, when no such ammendment to the constitution exists? What's the story there, looney judge or wha?


  • Options
    #66
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    LookingFor wrote: »
    That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.

    It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.

    But social change has to have the support of the majority (active or passive support) otherwise it won't work. Changes imposed upon a society against the majority invariably lead to more hostility of the general populace against the minority.

    On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.



    Find me someone who's not biased.

    Would he be unbiased if he was straight?

    Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?

    Despite his sexual orientation he has actually ruled against gay plaintiffs on issues in the past - in fact, his original appointment to the bench was challenged by Democrats on the grounds that he was 'insensitive to gays and the poor'.

    Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.


    Someones been reading wikipedia.

    This is an important first step in challenging the legality of the law and no doubt will be appealed to a higher court, perhaps even the supreme court in Washington. Considering the two sides are zealous and well funded it wouldn't surprise me if it goes all the way.

    I guess in Ireland we are lucky that the nation and the state are the same entity. We are also lucky in that only one party subscribes heavily to the left-right polarisation of politics. This gives us a more balanced spectrum of opinions in our supreme court. In the US the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is seen as a way a president can have his legacy and views integrated into American life long after they have left office.

    As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    Think about the complexities of what you talk about before you speak.

    Most studies regarding pedophilia conclude that it is about ACCESS to children vs specific gender attractions. And golly gee wizz - most male priests primarily had access to boys, and most nuns only to girls. And golly gee wizz, there are many cases of pedophile priests - and nuns - abusing boys and girls respectively.

    If you actually believe what you say though, that pedophilia has its roots in repressed sexuality, you should be entirely supportive of healthy adult sexuality and healthy adult relationships in all their flavours.
    Stinicker wrote: »

    I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

    The evidence so far doesn't support your discomfort. And your last sentence is just confusing. It's one half "really I'm reasonable" appeal while completely not supporting the other half. If you think gay people would make great adoptive parents, the grounds for opposing them pretty much evaporate.


  • Options
    #68
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    squod wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment



    Am I right here in saying the judge discribed the ban as unconstitutional, when no such ammendment to the constitution exists? What's the story there, looney judge or wha?

    It's specifically because no such ammendment to the constitution exists that makes the ban unconstitutional.........State laws must conform to the federal constitution.


  • Options
    #69
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    Have you any proof of that? A large proportion, how large is this proportion? Considering one in four people in Ireland were abused as children, I doubt even a significant percentage of those abuses were carried out by clergy. Literally one must look closer to home.


  • Options
    #70
    ciaranmac
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭ciaranmac


    Stinicker wrote: »
    No gay judge will decide what is legal and what is not and the rule of majority is what counts or else there is no rule at all.

    The job of a judge is exactly to decide what is legal and what is not.

    In the US, the majority in just one state does not have the power to take away rights that every citizen has under the US constitution. They lost that argument a long time ago.

    Stinicker wrote: »
    Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation.

    There is a difference between church marriage and state marriage. The state has no business controlling anything spiritual and they can't force any church to recognise a marriage it doesn't agree with. It follows that churches can't use spiritual arguments to stop the state reognising marriages either. Spirituality is almost as deeply, fundamentally personal as sexual orientation. I'm sure if the people voted in a law to stop Christians from marrying, that would be unconstitutional too, regardless of whether religion is a genetic trait.

    Stinicker wrote: »
    I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.

    So what you're saying is that because my wife and I don't have kids, we're somehow not fully married?


  • Options
    #71
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Think about the complexities of what you talk about before you speak.

    Most studies regarding pedophilia conclude that it is about ACCESS to children vs specific gender attractions. And golly gee wizz - most male priests primarily had access to boys, and most nuns only to girls. And golly gee wizz, there are many cases of pedophile priests - and nuns - abusing boys and girls respectively.

    If you actually believe what you say though, that pedophilia has its roots in repressed sexuality, you should be entirely supportive of healthy adult sexuality and healthy adult relationships in all their flavours.



    The evidence so far doesn't support your discomfort. And your last sentence is just confusing. It's one half "really I'm reasonable" appeal while completely not supporting the other half. If you think gay people would make great adoptive parents, the grounds for opposing them pretty much evaporate.

    I beleive Lesbians would make better parents because of the natural nurturing nature of a mother. Also in most cases of lesbian parentage the lesbian is the actual mother through sperm banks etc. How two men could suddenly decide to raise a child on their own is beyond me, whether they be gay or straight to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

    It is not natural for a lot of things to happen, but that does not mean that those things are wrong or should not happen.


  • Options
    #73
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    strobe wrote: »
    It's specifically because no such ammendment to the constitution exists that makes the ban unconstitutional.........State laws must conform to the federal constitution.


    ? Don't get you. It seems to me as the judge is going against the constitution here.


  • Options
    #74
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

    Sweet jesus.

    If someone got banned from this thread for basically calling a spade a spade and stuff like this is allowed stand with out any infraction.....


    :mad:


  • Options
    #75
    mardybumbum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals.

    Tony Geraghty, is that you?


  • Options
    #76
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    On gay parenting, this is an interesting documentary on the topic. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-weird-wonderful-family

    I'll be honest, I did feel uneasy when the little boy in the film said he wanted to be gay, like his dads.


  • Options
    #77
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.

    This is precisely why the American Civil War was fought. The federal north won, the confederate south lost. The result was no more slavery. You would have aligned with the confederacy if you were to hold to the above opinion.


  • Options
    #78
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Ha Ha, Yepee! Fuck you Democracy!


  • Options
    #79
    metaoblivia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭metaoblivia


    I think this is a great day for California and gay rights. The fight isn't over, but this is an important milestone. Normally, I'd love to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a federal ruling on the issue (since some states - like my own - have very anti-gay rights laws on the books), but with the conservative Roberts court I'm not sure it would result in the outcome I'd like to see.


  • Options
    #80
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    But social change has to have the support of the majority (active or passive support) otherwise it won't work.

    In this case I think popular support will follow. And I think it's a very two way thing, I think state and legal recognition helps prompt cultural change. When changes like this are made it gives dignity to people (and thus helps promote respect for them), and typically the sky doesn't fall in and people come to wonder what the fuss was about. Support for gay marriage and lgbt in general seems to be a very generational thing in the US judging by polls, and within 100 years I'm pretty confident most people there will look back on all this with puzzlement.

    All that said, it still doesn't mean these kinds of things should be purely subject to majority vote.
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    This is an important first step in challenging the legality of the law and no doubt will be appealed to a higher court, perhaps even the supreme court in Washington.

    Unless the supreme court declines to review it I think there's no perhaps about it. I don't know how that'll go, the composition of the current supreme court could be read either way on this.

    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.

    This is another debate...the question of how malleable the constitution should be. If the constitution though were to simply automatically react and change based on legislation passed and/or voted on, you pretty much don't need a constitution...it's a bit pointless in that context if it has no 'teeth'. Again, we come back to whether you want a direct democracy, or a republic founded on some fundamentals. And if the latter, what can be changed, and what exactly it takes to change them.


  • Options
    #81
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    squod wrote: »
    ? Don't get you. It seems to me as the judge is going against the constitution here.

    No man, you have it back to front. The ammendment was to change the constitution to say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It didn't pass. Therefore for a State to introduce a ban saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman is not supported by the constitution. It is infact inconsistant with the parts of the constitution the judge, and others have highlighted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

    So if 51% of people voted that blacks should be slaves, that would be OK?

    P.


  • Options
    #83
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    oceanclub wrote: »
    So if 51% of people voted that blacks should be slaves, that would be OK?

    P.

    I'm all for gay marriage but I don't think you can really compare the slavery of black people to the suppression of gay people to marry.


  • Options
    #84
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Making a democratic decision is most important, Ireland voted No to Lisbon and then secondly Yes.
    Lol


  • Options
    #85
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I'm all for gay marriage but I don't think you can really compare the slavery of black people to the suppression of gay people to marry.

    They're both the tyranny of the majority:

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

    P.


  • Options
    #86
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    a guy calls homosexual people paedophiles and he doesnt get a ban or anything.

    GO TEAM ACTIMEL!


  • Options
    #87
    Magill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    Matthewthebig wrote: »
    Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard

    LOL


  • Options
    #88
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

    I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.
    Most of our pedophiles were/are hetrosexual so by your position there must also be a clear link between the two.


  • Options
    #89
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    oceanclub wrote: »
    They're both the tyranny of the majority:

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

    P.
    Yeah, but stopping gay people from marrying is hardly the same as taking away all the freedom of a human being, putting him/her into captivity and making them work for nothing. I mean incest is illegal and I suppose one who is pro-incest could see it's illegality as "the Tyranny of the majority", yet a majority of people would say it is horrid and therefore should stay illegal. Saying this I still support gay marriage.


  • Options
    #90
    Magill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    I seriously dont get why people would be against it, i guess there are alot of gay haters in cali.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    People are against it because it's icky pretty much.

    Oh and if there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia then there must be a link between heterosexuality and paedophilia, seeing as paedophiles also fancy children of the opposite sex to them.


Advertisement