News and Politics Forum

It appears they struck down the ban.

chiscot wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

I've not read the decision.  Did they strike down the ban, or legalize it?  Or are they using those ideas interchangably?

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q … U0NWQ3NTY=

172 pages?  Ouch.

I believe Nak was a proponent of of civil unions.  This is the sort of opinion that I anticipated making that political compromise unworkable.

The issue generally is not about any actual individual rights to do anything specific.  According to the summary, CA homosexuals had SSM in all but name.  For its advocates the issue is the use of the leverage of the state power force people to treat homosexuality as normal.

JRoyC07 wrote:

chiscot wrote:

Does that mean you're getting ready to shop for a ring?

No, I havent met that special someone yet.

zukiphile wrote:

For its advocates the issue is the use of the leverage of the state power force people to treat homosexuality as normal.

Who is being coerced by this ruling?

The state of CA and in a less immediate sense, CA voters.

JRoyC07 wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

The state of CA and in a less immediate sense, CA voters.

Coerced into what?

bench wrote:

“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage … is no longer valid.

That?

That CA voters are not permitted to determine what is and is not a marriage under the law.  They had spoken pretty clearly on this, as had MA voters.

JRoyC07 wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

That CA voters are not permitted to determine what is and is not a marriage under the law.  They had spoken pretty clearly on this, as had MA voters.

Is your opposition solely on the grounds of voter representation with regard to the issue?

If so, would a majority vote in the affirmative change your mind? Or do you have other objections?

Personally I have other objections to homosexual practice, but as a legal matter my only objection to SSM is where it is pressed on a population.  I don't think something becomes a consitutional right just because someone really really and truly wants it.  If SSM is a good idea, convincing people of that fact and having the persuasive nature of the position reflected in the representative political process is the much better, longer lasting and genuine solution.

How much sooner will this bankrupt the social secruity system thus forcing us to pay more?

zukiphile wrote:

If SSM is a good idea, convincing people of that fact and having the persuasive nature of the position reflected in the representative political process is the much better, longer lasting and genuine solution.

Very reasonable.

If your spouse dies, you start receiving SS benefits.

2.DOH wrote:

If your spouse dies, you start receiving SS benefits.

Do I get an Iron Cross as well?

JRoyC07 wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

If SSM is a good idea, convincing people of that fact and having the persuasive nature of the position reflected in the representative political process is the much better, longer lasting and genuine solution.

Very reasonable.

And entirely useless.


Most people are idiots who believe whatever is presented to them in the most entertaining manner.

Please understand that you probably cannot underestimate what I mean by that.

If there are 300 million people in this country, you can pretty much count on 250m - 270m of them being idiots.

Most people are unaware of this for two reason:

1) They mistakenly believe that career competence is proof that a person is not an idiot.
2) They are themselves idiots.

My own dear Mother is an idiot. This is a woman who has a Masters degree, was a Biology Teacher for decades and spent the last few years of her career as a Guidance Counselor. Yet she's still an idiot.
My SISTER is actually dumb, but that's a different issue.

zukiphile wrote:

The police power is not unlimited: to be legitimate, the law must be rationally related to a conceivable legitimate state interest.

The oft-referenced "legitimate state interest" in marriage is that of furthering the population by creating a framework for spawning and raising children.

Unfortunately it seems as though birth rates are on the decline, without any help(?) from the existence of gay marriages.


Edited to add:

Oh God, another SSM thread. Here we fucking go again.

chiscot wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

My own dear Mother is an idiot.

So it runs in the family. Makes sense.

no...
I'm adopted.


And by the way; you shouldn't jump to any conclusions about which of those two groups you are a member of.