SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
Suck it.
Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
ACTIVIST JUDGES strike down prop 8.
- Thread starter SAUSAGEMAN
- Start date
SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
What matters are the facts that Walker finds. Why? As Chris Geidner notes, "[the] judge or jury who makes the findings of fact, however, is given deference because factual determinations are aided by the direct benefit of the judge or jury at trial. On appeal, Judge Walker's findings of fact will only be disturbed if the appellate court finds any to be clearly erroneous."
Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He evaluates as credible witnesses the panel of experts who testified against Proposition 8, and finds fault with the credentials of several witnesses who testified against same-sex marriage, including David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values:
Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."
Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He evaluates as credible witnesses the panel of experts who testified against Proposition 8, and finds fault with the credentials of several witnesses who testified against same-sex marriage, including David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values:
Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."
FBI parte due
Folces Weard
Now Massachusetts'll have to legalize weed so we can stay indisputably the most progressive state in the nation.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
Will they serve Eggs?
'Gear
RIP 1970~2018
I think we'll have you beat in California on that one too. SOme say November for legalization.
Since when did the States, and California in particular, start making so much sense??
Must have been when the powers that be finally fucked up everything so bad that now shit MUST change.
They say legalization of weed will make people lazy and stupid. I say people are already lazy and stupid.
Can you get lazy'er and stupid'er? I thought those were absolutes.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
The problem on the government end is that the People elected have big heads, usually are religious and think it's there duty as a representative of their religion with power, to steer the populace.
And, marriage, having legal aspects especially where taxation is concerned, allows for fuckity-up-ness.
And, marriage, having legal aspects especially where taxation is concerned, allows for fuckity-up-ness.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
Exactly. It also applies to abortion.
If you don't believe in them, don't get one.
If you are a member of a religion that does not approve of either of these things, then adhere to your religion, but allow others the choice of Not if that is not their thing.
Dirk Funk
Evil Penguin
I've explained my position on this before. I agree with that as long as what you're wanting to do doesn't harm another person. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, abortion takes the life of another human being, so that's why those two things aren't in the same category. Religion or lack thereof is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm far too lazy to retype it all here, so I'll just link to what I wrote a few months back. http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1829637&postcount=239
Imperium
New member
Say what?
Consumer
Elder Statesman
"Poly" should be next.
Group marriage, anyone? I'm calling "dibs" on Cinch, LC, MM, (and Cait and Aurian if they ever show up again). Tis, you and your SO are welcome to half shares provided you also do dishes at least twice a week.
(off to get my copies of "Friday" and SISL and digging up Heinlein as my "expert witness)
Group marriage, anyone? I'm calling "dibs" on Cinch, LC, MM, (and Cait and Aurian if they ever show up again). Tis, you and your SO are welcome to half shares provided you also do dishes at least twice a week.
(off to get my copies of "Friday" and SISL and digging up Heinlein as my "expert witness)
SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
[YOUTUBEHQ]EJwSprkiInE[/YOUTUBEHQ]
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
And he's a 9/11 widower too, so they can't turn around and call him names.
Conchaga
Let's fuck some shit up
SB, I don't think we should go after Poly. I know you're being facetious. At least I hope you are. But, for the sake of argument, poly marriages will just give way to wackadoos in religious cults (like mormons and JC:LDS) justifying their subjugation of women for purely procreative and servile roles.
Consumer
Elder Statesman
In all seriousness: Poly works for maybe 2% of the population. The rest is psychologically unsuited to it.
The religious nuts you mention are not in a "polyamorous" marriage, it's an "Apex" or "Stable" type relationship where the "alpha" is being waited on by a bunch of partners who are competing for attention in turn. The dynamic between the waiting partners is competitive rather than another set of relationships between them (which must be loving, even if they are not always sexual). Apex relationships are pretty much inherently abusive.
(sigh)
Yeah...that particular law is probably a good thing. A "Poly" relationship will happen regardless of the law, and the healthy ones are "natural" and usually discrete.
The religious nuts you mention are not in a "polyamorous" marriage, it's an "Apex" or "Stable" type relationship where the "alpha" is being waited on by a bunch of partners who are competing for attention in turn. The dynamic between the waiting partners is competitive rather than another set of relationships between them (which must be loving, even if they are not always sexual). Apex relationships are pretty much inherently abusive.
(sigh)
Yeah...that particular law is probably a good thing. A "Poly" relationship will happen regardless of the law, and the healthy ones are "natural" and usually discrete.
SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
It's Britney bitch.
