Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

ScumLord

bronte wrote: »

I'm adopted.

Why is it preferable that children should be raised with their biological parents?

Easy access to blood and organs for the child.

philologos

bronte wrote: »

I'm adopted.

Why is it preferable that children should be raised with their biological parents?

No need to make a mountain out of a mole-hill bronte! I don't for a second doubt that adoptive parents do a very good job for the most part.

I think a lot of people who are adopted do still have a desire to know their biological mother and father though, and it is probably good if a child does have a relationship with these people throughout their life.

bronte

Jakkass wrote: »

No need to make a mountain out of a mole-hill bronte! I don't for a second doubt that adoptive parents do a very good job for the most part.

I think a lot of people who are adopted do still have a desire to know their biological mother and father though, and it is probably good if a child does have a relationship with these people throughout their life.

Oh for the whole part, definitely...They're the best.

I dunno, some adopted kids do, but a lot of them have just accepted their adoptive parents....especially if they've known about it from the very beginning.
Mine are the only parents I'll ever have as far as I'm concerned.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

I did. I don't think that in that case the ECHR did anything out of the ordinary, as it wasn't defying the Irish Constitution.

No - You floundered on - without giving a simple yes or no answer - The Surpeme found in 1983 that the laws at the time were "constitutional" before it went to the ECHR

ScumLord

bronte wrote: »

Oh for the whole part, definitely...They're the best.

I dunno, some adopted kids do, but a lot of them have just accepted their adoptive parents....especially if they've known about it from the very beginning.
Mine are the only parents I'll ever have as far as I'm concerned.

In a lot of ways adoption could be considered a much better way of dealing with births than just letting nature take it's course. Your essentially improving the child's future by an untold amount as the government is vetting possible parents and ensuring they're of a high standard excluding the vast majority of the population for the ideal candidates.

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - You floundered on - without giving a simple yes or no answer - The Surpeme found in 1983 that the laws at the time were "constitutional" before it went to the ECHR

The law prior to 1983 was constitutional, because the constitution itself was silent on whether or not LGBT sexual acts were permissible.
The law after de-criminalisation was constitutional, because the constitution itself was silent on whether or not LGBT sexual acts were permissible.

The topic of LGBT sexual acts is entirely different to that of same-sex marriage, and particularly the California context.

General Zod

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - You floundered on - without giving a simple yes or no answer - The Surpeme found in 1983 that the laws at the time were "constitutional" before it went to the ECHR

Stop in the name of Love?

General Zod

Jakkass wrote: »

The topic of LGBT sexual acts is entirely different to that of same-sex marriage, and particularly the California context.

but it boils down to "these people don't do the naughty things the way we do the naughty things therefore are inferior humans not entitled to the same rights".

philologos

^^ Not at all. As far as I'm concerned it's all down to knock-on affects within the larger society that need to be thought about.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Not at all. As far as I'm concerned it's all down to knock-on affects within the larger society that need to be thought about.

Thats mere speculation. Places have had same sex marriage for a long time and their countries havent burst into flames. Society carried on much the same as it always has. I honestly cant see how people like you can continue to discriminate.

Dont post up "think of the children" arguments or "right to have a mum and dad" shíte. It has been shown on numerous occasions that having two mums or two dads doesnt impact on kids in any significant way.

The "sanctity" of marriage crap is just a load of nonsense as well. Just because you feel that is not right doesnt mean you get to impose your will on others.

You rehash the same lousy flaky "arguments" all the time in these threads and its rather tiresome, especially since you cant validly back them up. "The bible told me so" doesnt count.

Links234

I plan to raise my children in a lesbian coven. take that traditional family values!

Tar.Aldarion

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats mere speculation. Places have had same sex marriage for a long time and their countries havent burst into flames. Society carried on much the same as it always has. I honestly cant see how people like you can continue to discriminate.

Dont post up "think of the children" arguments or "right to have a mum and dad" shíte. It has been shown on numerous occasions that having two mums or two dads doesnt impact on kids in and significant way.

The "sanctity" of marriage crap is just a load of nonsense as well. Just because you feel that is not right doesnt mean you get to impose your will on others.

You rehash the same lousy flaky "arguments" all the time in these threads and its rather tiresome, especially since you cant validly back them up. "The bible told me so" doesnt count.

In some cases it is people seeing what their religion says and trying to find a way to justify that, as nothing in their religion can be wrong, rather than looking at things impartially and trying to conclude without a bias.

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Not at all. As far as I'm concerned it's all down to knock-on affects within the larger society that need to be thought about.

What knock on effects on the larger society are you talking about? Same sex marriage will have no effect on probably 99.9999% of the rest of society.

philologos

Mrmoe wrote: »

What knock on effects on the larger society are you talking about? Same sex marriage will have no effect on probably 99.9999% of the rest of society.

Mainly in terms of children, and the educational system. I think marriage has merits in its current state in terms of raising children with both a mother and a father, and I think that children should be able to draw up their own conclusions as to whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.

These make it much broader than 99.9999% certainly.

Deleted User wrote:

Dont post up "think of the children" arguments or "right to have a mum and dad" shíte. It has been shown on numerous occasions that having two mums or two dads doesnt impact on kids in and significant way.

I'm ready to listen to anything that you have to present on it. On the whole though, let's tone down the auld rhetoric a little, I'm only interested in respectful discussion, and indeed it's the only intention I ever have when I'm discussing on boards.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that children should be able to draw up their own conclusions as to whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.

How you can say that while you want it banned is beyond me.
"Well little Timmy you can decide if it's right or wrong if you like, but everyone else has decided it's wrong so it's banned"

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

Mainly in terms of children, and the educational system. I think marriage has merits in its current state in terms of raising children with both a mother and a father, and I think that children should be able to draw up their own conclusions as to whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.

These make it much broader than 99.9999% certainly.

How does it have an effect on children when 99.9999% will probably never meet other children of same sex couples, will probably never hear about them, will probably never read about them nor will they be forced or encouraged to do something different because same sex couples exist. Any examples of the effect on 99.99% children that you say this will have?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

How you can say that while you want it banned is beyond me.
"Well little Timmy you can decide if it's right or wrong if you like, but everyone else has decided it's wrong so it's banned"

Read back a few pages ago, where I said that if the people decided to legalise same-sex marriage, though I would be by and large in disagreement with the vote, I would accept it as being the decision made.

I think having both marriage, and civil partnership is the way to deal with the issue best, precisely because heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different.

My issue by and large with this California decision was that it was anti-democratic.

Mrmoe wrote: »

How does it have an effect on children when 99.9999% will probably never meet other children of same sex couples, will probably never hear about them, will probably never read about them nor will they be forced or encouraged to do something different because same sex couples exist. Any examples of the effect on 99.99% children that you say this will have?

I meant in terms of biasing the curriculum. As for 99.99%, while I think that figure is more likely than not incorrect, it isn't what I was referring to.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

My issue by and large with this California decision was that it was anti-democratic.

Well they're not a democracy so it still works out pretty well

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

Mainly in terms of children, and the educational system. I think marriage has merits in its current state in terms of raising children with both a mother and a father, and I think that children should be able to draw up their own conclusions as to whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.

These make it much broader than 99.9999% certainly.

By and large, the only people impacted would be gay people and their children.

You talk somewhat as if existing family structures would be somehow affected. They would not. It's a question of legal recognition, not of what's actually happening out there already. Gay people are already having children, and many children are already raised outside marriages.

If gay people were to have more children because of state recognition of their families, this wouldn't put any child who otherwise would have heterosexual parents under gay parents. You would have more children raised by gay people, but they wouldn't otherwise have had straight parents. Opposition to gay people having more kids carries the rather offensive suggestion that this increased number of kids would be better off not existing than having gay parents.

The only other issue then is one of adoption. The question is if if heterosexual couples are universally more suitable to adopt than gay couples. If the answer is no - and I think reasonably it must be - then the adoption service is no worse off, is in fact better off, if gay couples are available as an option. Let the adoption service figure out where a child is best placed, assuming they do so on a sound, thorough and evidence-based approach.

When it comes to these issues and comes to hearings about them in courts, anyone can bring any claim they wish to the table. But if you expect it to be upheld, it has to hold up under scrutiny. Claims that heterosexual couples are so distinctly and universally a better context for raising children that marriage should be reserved for them need to be examined carefully. Personally I do not think it holds up, I don't think the fact of a couple's gender mix is such a fundamental issue that it trumps any other when determining if gay people and their families should enjoy the same responsibilities, rights, protections - and terminology - as their heterosexual peers.

To swing back on the context here, I'm pretty sure the issue of family and children was examined quite thoroughly during this case, and I would guess was addressed in this judgment, if you wanted this court's opinion on the evidence presented to it. I haven't read such yet, I haven't read the entirety of the judgment, but I guess there is a good examination of all of that in there, and current state of arguments about that and their merits.

philologos

LookingFor wrote: »

By and large, the only people impacted would be gay people and their children.

Indeed, this is the point.

LookingFor wrote: »

You talk somewhat as if existing family structures would be somehow affected. They would not. It's a question of legal recognition, not of what's actually happening out there already. Gay people are already having children, and many children are already raised outside marriages.

It's a pretty big difference to the situations where children will be placed. As for children being raised already outside marriages, I'm more than aware of this. I would regard marriage as being the best option for a child, and I think the State should do more to encourage marriage above and beyond all other family structures, precisely because it is best for a child.

While I respect single-parents for the huge effort that they put in in terms of raising their children, children are best raised with both a mother and a father in a stable marriage.

I think the point as I would see it would be to give as many children, the best possible upbringing. Unfortunately, that isn't possible in other cases, but I think it is the States responsibility to make sure that it does happen in most cases.

Just because it is "happening already" doesn't mean that it is of necessity good, or that we should further erode such family structures.

LookingFor wrote: »

If gay people were to have more children because of state recognition of their families, this wouldn't put any child who otherwise would have heterosexual parents under gay parents. You would have more children raised by gay people, but they wouldn't otherwise have had straight parents. Opposition to gay people having more kids carries the rather offensive suggestion that this increased number of kids would be better off not existing than having gay parents.

What about the other biological parent in such situations? Do they have zero contact with their child? That's where another problem would arise for me, I guess.

LookingFor wrote: »

The only other issue then is one of adoption. The question is if if heterosexual couples are universally more suitable to adopt than gay couples. If the answer is no - and I think reasonably it must be - then the adoption service is no worse off, is in fact better off, if gay couples are available as an option. Let the adoption service figure out where a child is best placed, assuming they do so on a sound, thorough and evidence-based approach.

If the answer is no, of course. If it isn't, and if children are better off with both mother and father, then the adoption system should show preference to families that will give the child both a mother and a father. If such decisions involve the welfare and best upbringing of another human being, then I support positive discrimination in that case.

LookingFor wrote: »

When it comes to these issues and comes to hearings about them in courts, anyone can bring any claim they wish to the table. But if you expect it to be upheld, it has to hold up under scrutiny. Claims that heterosexual couples are so distinctly and universally a better context for raising children that marriage should be reserved for them need to be examined carefully. Personally I do not think it holds up, I don't think the fact of a couple's gender mix is such a fundamental issue that it trumps any other when determining if gay people and their families should enjoy the same responsibilities, rights, protections - and terminology - as their heterosexual peers.

Indeed, and claims that being raised without a mother or a father won't have any impact on a child also need to hold up under scrutiny. In this case personally I don't think that this is the case.

bluewolf - Again, a constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

My issue by and large with this California decision was that it was anti-democratic.

Good grief.:rolleyes:
You are aware that the Judge (who was a Bush nominee and who heard arguments from both sides) found that Prop 8 was repugnant to the Constitution, arent you?

Simple question: if California voters voted for the criminalisation of religous expression in private, and the same Judge ruled that decision (of the voters) to be unconstitutional, would you claim that the judge's decision was anti-democratic?

You need to critically assess your own thoughts, Jackass, before you commit them to print.

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

I meant in terms of biasing the curriculum. As for 99.99%, while I think that figure is more likely than not incorrect, it isn't what I was referring to.

How will it bias the curriculum? Is there a particular subject that will be affected? Is same sex marriage even mentioned/discussed in French, Irish, English, Geography, History, Science, Business,Maths classes?

philologos

drkpower: Read my posts, I've dealt with a post with pretty much exactly the same substance as yours a few pages ago (probably a good few pages ago).

As for my position, I've thought it through!

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

My issue by and large with this California decision was that it was anti-democratic.

Well you see if you're going to look at the hardline pure democracy route, you will find that pure democracy is quite limiting in what people are actually permitted to vote upon.

Pure democracy hinges on all people being equal, having equal say in the running of a society and equal rights in law to all of their peers.
Therefore, it is fundamentally impossible to have a democratic vote on the rights of the individual because any outcome which gave an individual (or group of individuals) a lesser right under the law would be paradoxically undemocratic.

So if you are to get into it a little more deeply, you'll find that denying two individuals the right to marry is inherently undemocratic because you are assigning less rights under the law to those individuals than you have assigned to their peers.

Of course, most countries don't run a pure democracy and so anti-democratic controls are necessary to ensure that the tyranny of the majority cannot actually happen.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

As for my position, I've thought it through!

Clearly you havent as you keep saying this decision was anti-democratic. Answer the question I posed Jakkass:

Simple question: if California voters voted for the criminalisation of religous expression in private, and the same Judge ruled that decision (of the voters) to be unconstitutional, would you claim that the judge's decision was anti-democratic?

It should be very straightforward if you have, indeed, thought this through.

philologos

I've answered that question already. I would suspect he's taking liberties. Indeed, a few commentators that I've been flicking through on it have come to this conclusion.

I'd like to see it go the whole way to Supreme Court, there needs to be a final decision made on it.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I've answered that question already. I would suspect he's taking liberties. Indeed, a few commentators that I've been flicking through on it have come to this conclusion.

I'd like to see it go the whole way to Supreme Court, there needs to be a final decision made on it.

Taking liberties? Stop dodging and answer the incredibly straightforward question I asked:

If California voters voted for the criminalisation of religous expression in private, and the same Judge ruled that decision (of the voters) to be unconstitutional, would you claim that the judge's decision was anti-democratic?

philologos

drkpower - Someone already asked me pretty much the exact same question a few pages ago. But I may as well answer it again.

Such a situation is entirely different from a change in family structure which could affect other individuals, but if such a criminalisation took place, I would no doubt be still expressing myself in that way.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

drkpower - Someone already asked me pretty much the exact same question a few pages ago. But I may as well answer it again.

Such a situation is entirely different from a change in family structure which could affect other individuals, but if such a criminalisation took place, I would no doubt be still expressing myself in that way.

That is NOT answering the question I asked. And you know it. Yet you continue to dodge. Nowhere in that 'answer' did you answer my question.

You have said that the judge's decision in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional was anti-democratic (because the people of California voted for Prop 8).

So again (4th time), if a judge declared Prop 9 (making private religous expression illegal) or Prop 10 (criminalising short skirts), both of which were voted for by the public, as unconstitutional, would you declare that judicial act to be anti-democratic?

Answer the question asked & dont be so cowardly.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

So again (4th time), if a judge declared Prop 9 (making private religous expression illegal) or Prop 10 (criminalising short skirts), both of which were voted for by the public, as unconstitutional, would you declare that judicial act to be anti-democratic?

Answer the question asked & dont be so cowardly.

If they were in fact unconstitutional, it would be still anti-democratic, but there would be some grounds for it I guess.

The point is, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is unconstitutional given the US-wide precedent, and it is anti-democratic.

Edit: Surely it would have been a much better option to put it on the November ballot with the mid-term elections.