Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

oooookay.
flamebaits ftw.

^^b

lold

If you're convicted of murder and appeal your case, the appeals court is not allowed to re-gather evidence or re-call witnesses. Any "findings of fact" must stand as true. You can only appeal on process errors or the judge's interpretation of that fact.

The following findings of fact (83 of them! with sub-headers!) were made today, and thus cannot be overturned or argued:

-------------------

Definition of Marriage and Sexual Orientation

- Marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege.

- Individuals do not choose their sexual orientation.

- Sexual orientation is a protected status akin to race.

-------------------

Influence on Heterosexual Marriage or Behavior

- Gay marriage does not threaten or harm the institution of heterosexual marriage in any way.

- Acceptance of gay marriage does not influence or alter the behavior of heterosexuals in any way.

-------------------

Influence on Children and Family

- Children are not harmed or unduly influenced in any way by being raised by same-sex parents, or the acceptable of same-sex marriage in general.

- Children of same-sex couples benefit from their parents being "married" to the same extent that straight children are.

-------------------

Role of Religion and Morality

- The institution of marriage is primarily secular and not religious in nature.

- Religious moral arguments are never a rational basis to deny rights to a protected minority.

-------------------

Nature and Goals of Prop 8

- Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis (historical, scientific, or socio-economical) in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

- Proposition 8 was not to "protect traditional marriage" but rather an attempt to enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples, and is thus malicious and purposely discriminatory.

--------------------

And finally:

- Civil unions are not a valid compromise because "separate but equal" is illegal under the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution without a rational basis.

So far I've seen 1 ninja edit Jaerik.

There were actually three.

Sneaky sneaky. I totally didn't notice that you had snuck in one more post on the last page. This all is pretty good news though, the more constitutional the better. Still a bit sad that it's so far past the civil rights movement to even get to this point though.

jaerik this win really means alot to you doesn't it?

I'd say historically it means quite a lot.

It's definately a huge step in the right direction... It's been nice to hear some good news for once in our rather screwed up world.

It's a big deal.

It will likely be considered a landmark decision. It should mean a lot to everyone.

Being a creative profession, there is a relatively high amount of alternative sexualities in the gaming industry. (And entertainment in general.) I've worked in studios where 7 out of 18 people were gay. My roommate is gay. (Who's also a coworker.)

So yes, I'm happy that they're happy. My personal views on the overall question of gay rights is mostly irrelevant and I won't share them here.

Few facts on the Judge handing down the decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

This is hardly a landmark decision - this is a political Judge pandering to his political base/backers.

The landmark decision will be what the Supreme Court decides on this, considering it will probably fast tracked to that effect.

Throughout history, marriage has been the recognized ceremony by which humanity distinguishes a difference in child/family raising between the civility of humans, and the indifferent base instincts of animals. To that effect as humans are mammals, and reproduce exclusively heterosexually - marriage is solely recognized to be pure domain of a union of a man with a women... and nothing else.

P.S. Please don't use logical fallacies and common errors in logical reasoning to refute my statement, just stick to the facts please.

P.S. Please don't use logical fallacies and common errors in logical reasoning to refute my statement, just stick to the facts please.

You mean like the 'appeal to authority' you're using?

Nope just citing the facts (please refute/prove them otherwise).. by the way - if you have nothing of substance to contribute, why post?

Your 'fact' is nothing but a reference to the logical fallacy that is known as 'appeal to authority'. Google it.

While I could care less about the issue, I just love how for years the gay community in California fought to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. And when they were finally successful, it was voted down by the majority of the state.

Not willing to accept the fact that the majority of state, and more than likely, the majority of the country opposes gay marriages, they take their loss to court to force it on us.

Yet another example of how our majority rule democracy is being directed by the minority

Well, a couple things wrong with that. First, we're not really a majority rule democracy. Popular vote doesn't win the presidency. In fact, the electoral college was put in place by the founding fathers because of their lack of faith in the general public to make the correct decisions. Personally, I think that's the wisest decision they ever made. Second, I think a society ruled by the popular vote is a rather dangerous thing. The majority of the population don't have knowledge on the majority of matters, which leads to people making ignorant and reckless decision. Nevermind how easily persuaded and manipulated people are.

And it's not like the minority fraction you're speaking of is marching up to court and bluntly demanding what they want. They're presenting facts, appealing to reason and at the end of the day, leaving it up to the court for the final word. As I recall, the ruling is 4/3, meaning they were hanging on by the skin of their teeth. It wasn't nearly as simple and easy as you appear to believe it is.

As Ihina said: We're not a majority rule democracy; not now, have never been, will never be.

Majority rule has been frowned upon for ages; as far back as Plato's The Republic. 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill warned against the tyranny of the majority, citing Tocqueville's Diversity in America, in his On Liberty.

^^ how is this not factual?

Regarding appeal to authority, I gave a specific link listing various logical fallacies, to which was included your claim of "Appeal to Authority".. here it is:

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true."

I am not making a claim nor am I claiming to be an authority; I am simply citing a fact - please review my opening statement in this response and answer it/disprove it....

The case is "Perry v. Schwarzenegger"? Could be quite a historical case, but that just makes it better. :)


I don't find that a "fact" at all. Every culture has had its own take on marriage since the dawn of human existence. I doubt early humans even had such a ceremony. There's nothing universal about it that applies throughout all time and space. A marriage in Rome in 50 AD could mean an entirely different thing than a marriage in Houston, Texas in 2010.

i didnt read through all the posts...but if two people love each other and want to get married so be it...it should be up to the two people getting married...maybe a blessing from the parents if ur into that sort of thing but seriously i see no reason for it not to be legal..stupid as hell

I wore a red dress at my wedding <.<
I don't believe in God but I got married prolly for the same reasons as gay people who don't believe in God. So that if either me or my husband die all of our stuff we collected together doesn't go to our parents. It's also protection incase we split. If we both bought a house together as a single couple, I could put all the money into buying it but if the house is in my BFs name it would go to him if we split.

I swore I saw someone say this idr where though but someone said marriage should stay between a man and woman because we're meant to procreate... That is total *** imo you can certainly procreate without being married.

When in doubt on a definition on any word there is always Merriam-Webster ^^ here's their definition.
Notice #2 on here..

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Ricco I miss you. lol :D

This is political/media hyperbole. The real discussion should not be about gay marriage, it should be about why the government gets to decide who can be married. The governemnt should not be able to tell people that they can or cannot get married. We won't solve any problems until we start asking question like this.

I R back wards ^^ on atm lol stupid lava ring nm D: