patrick.net

the Government shouldn't have a say in the matter.
The Church has every right too, it's called a religion, not a club where rules are augmented to suit the times. Or adultery, theft, murder, and worshiping idols wouldn't be a sin by now.

I don't have a problem with Gays getting married, how ever if their gripe is about what religion is checked on the application or form, and they can't accept box just labeled "Civil Union" then they are asking to much. Atheists should also marry under the same description.

Tozt, you'd be correct except that we issue Marriage Licenses in California and not "Civil Union Licenses." The government is already in the business of certifying marriages. Marriage is a legal contract in this country. Civil Union is separate and not equal. This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with equal protection under the law, Amendment XIV.

Again, this isn't about religion or morality. It's about equality under the law. We have separation of church and state in this country. The only reasons to limit marriage to a marriage between a man and a woman come from moral codes of certain groups or religion. We don't decide rights in this country based on religion or any one group's definition of morality. We acknowledge unalienable rights that are granted by virtue of being born. They are not attached to religious or moral prinicipals.

Therefore, the judge ruled correctly. The Mormons in Utah and hate groups in California incorrectly pushed discrimination into our constitution because of their "moral" and "religious" convictions. It had nothing to do with constitutional law for them.

Our Constitution stands regardless of religion or any moral code. The rights enshrined therein (both federal and state) are undeniable and cannot be revoked. This judge correctly ruled that we don't limit people's freedom based on religious objections or moral objections of minority groups. The prop 8 supporters could only point to religious and "moral" codes in support of prop 8. The prop 8 opponents proved their case based on constitutional law arguing that prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV, not on religious or "moral" codes. Therefore, the opponents won as they should have.

California voters correctly voted to amend CA's Constitution. They did it legally as directed by the CA Constitution. This is nothing other than another example of a Federal Judge overruling the legal mandate, as defined by California law, of the people.

The Federal government is supposed to protect the liberty and private property rights of all citizens. No government at any level should be allowed to keep two people from entering a contract that doesn't infringe on another's liberty or private propert rights. When a state stomps on a citizens liberty, it should be declared unconstitutional.

Even if you feel that two dudes having sex makes baby jesus cry, why in the world would we waste our time trying to police something that doesn't affect anyone outside of the two people who want to get married? (I am looking in your direction here Republicans.)

Who was the comedian that said, "Gays should be allowed to marry, and be just as miserable as the rest of us."?

CBO .... if this is ruled "constitutional" it will infringe upon freedom of religion. For example: those (churches) that hold to the belief in the bible as the source of their faith conceivably will be forced to "accept" as members, employees, etc. married homosexuals. This would be a direct violation of their belief in what the scriptures teach.

Furthermore, where will the line be drawn? How could Mormons be prevented from practicing polygamy if all the adults involved consented?

RayAmerica says

For example: those (churches) that hold to the belief in the bible as the source of their faith conceivably will be forced to “accept” as members, employees, etc. married homosexuals.

Is that the best example (ie worst consequence) you can come up with ? Wouldn't that same problem exist if it was a civil union ?

Personally I have no problem with gay marriage, but I think it might have been sensible to just go for civil unions now, and then in 30 years or so, when the oldest current Americans are gone, then upgrade it to Marriage without hardly any objection. It's a well documented fact that this is so not an issue among adults under 40 - -45 (not sure where the cut off is).

Unless the less rational among us might be convinced by the statistics that it's only a question of when, so why not focus your attention on somewhere that you might make a difference.

RayAmerica says

CBO …. if this is ruled “constitutional” it will infringe upon freedom of religion. For example: those (churches) that hold to the belief in the bible as the source of their faith conceivably will be forced to “accept” as members, employees, etc. married homosexuals.

Absolutely untrue. Not having a prohibition on gay marriage doesn't force any church to do anything it doesn't want to do. There isn't a provision to force churches to marry gays and lesbians or accept gays and lesbians into their congregations. That is a straw man argument.

Removing a limitation on the civil rights of gays and lesbians does nothing to prevent a church from refusing the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. Since there is a separation of church and state, the state can't force churches to administer sacraments to anyone or withhold sacraments from anyone.

In our country, in civil law, marriage is a legal contract between two people. Marriage licenses issued by the State are civil contracts, they aren't religious at all. Civil unions and "domestic partnerships" were created specifically to create a second class status to same sex unions under law. Civil unions didn't exist until there were people demanding their right to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, civil unions aren't equal under the law. They don't grant any of the same rights a legal marriage does. Therefore, the state has an obligation to provide the same equal protection to people entering same sex unions as people who enter opposite sex unions. The legal word used to describe what is called "civil union" in other countries is "marriage" in this country. All of the legal protections and obligations of a "civil union" in other countries are only granted to holders of a Marriage License in this country. Therefore, the State is obliged to issue Marriage Licenses to all consenting pairings of adults no matter their gender or sexual orientation if it is to follow Amendment XIV. It's quite simple.

This in no way obligates any religious institution to perform same sex marriages or to recognize civil same sex marriages or religious same sex marriages performed in other religious institutions.

Nope, churches are free to discriminate as they always have, as it should be because of our separation of church and state. In turn, churches do not have the right to impose their beliefs on the people of this country because of the separation of church and state.

RayAmerica says

CBO …. if this is ruled “constitutional” it will infringe upon freedom of religion.

No, it won't. Religious people are still free to believe and worship whatever they like.

RayAmerica says

For example: those (churches) that hold to the belief in the bible as the source of their faith conceivably will be forced to “accept” as members, employees, etc. married homosexuals.

I am confused by your reasoning. Are you trying to say that in the name of freedom of religion, that our government should legally enforce religious morals? If so, which religion? And which morals within that religion?

Leviticus does say that people who engage in gay sex should be stoned to death, right after stating that women who engage in pre-marital sex and men that make love to their wives during menstruation all deserve death. I am pretty sure this wasn't Jesus's intent. Last I checked the high school sluts and married men who make sexy time during their wives special week are still allowed in church. Regardless, a private organization may decline mebership on any detail they deem fit.

RayAmerica says

This would be a direct violation of their belief in what the scriptures teach

There was only one perfect Christian. All of us are a direct violation to what the scriptures teach on some level. The fact that Jesus loves us all despite this is supposed to be the beauty of Christianity.

RayAmerica says

Furthermore, where will the line be drawn? How could Mormons be prevented from practicing polygamy if all the adults involved consented?

If they are consenting adults, and aren't hurting anyone else, they should be free to do whatever they want with each other. Why do you care if some mormon has three wives? Or two wives and a husband? Or two wives and a concubined donkey? What difference does it make to your life?

CBOEtrader says

If they are consenting adults, and aren’t hurting anyone else, they should be free to do whatever they want with each other. Why do you care if some mormon has three wives? Or two wives and a husband? Or two wives and a concubined donkey? What difference does it make to your life?

The whole polygamy thing is more complicated. They treat women like chattel, marrying them to men over twice their age because the old guy is apparently more deserving of more wives than young men. They force young men out of the community, leaving them homeless and without support systems. It's an opressive society, not a way of life. But I digress.

CBOE, why separate civil union from marriage? Marriage is a legal contract that can be made & broken and the "sanctity" of marriage is broken every day by heterosexuals. It only holds as much meaning as the people entering into the contract.

The Mormon church is pissed over this ruling. They believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I've seen my share of cover-ups of sexual abuse of minors, spousal abuse, influence of public officials and issues, and they have a program for gays where they can get together and stay strong against their physical urges and sexual orientation. Where they can denounce what they're feeling and publicly announce how reprehensible they find it to have these horrible, animalistic urges to have sex with someone of the same sex.

It's also an awesome place to find a same-sex date.

The church would rather that its members remain in sexless facades of marriages rather than be who they would like to be. It used millions of dollars to fight against gay marriage in California while it demands that members, both gay & straight, pay 10% of their gross income in tithing to support the position of its leaders and blindly follow.

Proposition 8 wasn't about marriage. It was about controling people's lives. It wasn't about what God wants (Mormons call him "heavenly father"), it was about what the church wants.

I think that, before they strike down gay marriage (again), they should pass a measure to only allow the missionary position, not allow people to have more than one partner, outlaw all porn, place cameras in every home to ensure there is no abhorrent behavior, outlaw masturbation, and force every marriage to remain in force for life. That's more practical.

I don't understand why anyone would want more than 1 wife anyway. Girlfriends, maybe. But not wives...

Nomograph says

I found an earthworm on my back patio this morning. I’m planning on marrying it later. Will you be attending the nuptials?

It seems like the two of you were made for each other. Congratulations on finding your soulmate. When & where is the ceremony? Thanks for the invite.

CBOEtrader says

Why do you care if some mormon has three wives? Or two wives and a husband? Or two wives and a concubined donkey?

That's where I draw a line. I'd feel sorry for the donkey.

RayAmerica says

Furthermore, where will the line be drawn? How could Mormons be prevented from practicing polygamy if all the adults involved consented?

elliemae says

The whole polygamy thing is more complicated. They treat women like chattel

Well now, doesn't this provide for some interesting thoughts. How to level the playing field to let people do what they want, but not be chattel: First of all, a woman would have to be allowed to have more than one husband if he can have more than one wife. Why the hell any chick would saddle themselves with that who knows, but it would make even.

I suppose there could be built-in divorce provisions required for polygamous marriages, where a soon to be ex gets an proportionate amount of the 50% of assets: like, two wives gets 25% of the household, 3 wives each are entitled to about 17%. Buy out REQUIRED when divorce goes through.

Can you imagine?: wife #1 has fit when hubby wants a second wife, as her pride and potential stake is diluted - the husband will need to think long and hard about how to keep wife #1 happy so she doesn't dump him and he must pony up 25% of his worth to bring in the nice young tart. Bringing in wife #3 risks losing 34%, if he pisses off the 2 earlier wives and the divorces happen after wedding #3. lol. I'll bet suddenly the old men won't be so quick to rack up the women (or the wife to rack up the extra husbands).

During his administration Ronald Reagan originally appointed Judge Vaughn Walker, who just lifted this ban. Reagan was not a bible thumper whatsoever, regardless of what the evangelicals claim. Reagan was a libertarian Republican.

How about government gets out of the "marriage" business entirely, and only grant civil unions? The word marriage doesn't make much sense from a legal standpoint as far as I'm concerned, anyway. Each church and group can decide for itself what constitutes marriage, and I can join the group or church that conforms to my beliefs. I've never understood why the government is concerned about marriage at all. It's basically a tax code and legal representation issue (along with who can visit who in hospitals, who can inherit, whatever), and all of this can be solved by civil unions. I will gladly exchange my wife and my marriage certificate for a contract of civil union and get the government out of this issue entirely. As far as I can tell, legal marriage really just exists so there's some sort of framework for dispensing of assets in case of death or divorce, and for tax purposes.

ahasuerus99 says

How about government gets out of the “marriage” business entirely, and only grant civil unions? The word marriage doesn’t make much sense from a legal standpoint as far as I’m concerned, anyway. Each church and group can decide for itself what constitutes marriage, and I can join the group or church that conforms to my beliefs. I’ve never understood why the government is concerned about marriage at all. It’s basically a tax code and legal representation issue (along with who can visit who in hospitals, who can inherit, whatever), and all of this can be solved by civil unions. I will gladly exchange my wife and my marriage certificate for a contract of civil union and get the government out of this issue entirely. As far as I can tell, legal marriage really just exists so there’s some sort of framework for dispensing of assets in case of death or divorce, and for tax purposes.

Well said. But that won't easily happen.

Meanwhile, nobody is stopping anyone from framing it that way for themselves. Gay couples, get a civil union and call yourself married. The only difference is the semantics of the word marriage. All that matters is how you see it and how you define it, as long as you have the legal rights. And all forward thinking types will think of you as married, those with a more backward perspective won't. You could even have a religious marriage ceremony on top of the civil union that you get done (however that works).

I understand the broader point is sort of asking the culture and the country to officially acknowledge a higher level of acceptance. But hey, at least the trend is good. I would just give it time and save the fight for civil unions granting all the rights of marriage in all states, a more winnable fight.

Generally speaking, marriage is basically a religious institution. Because of the constitutional separation of church and state, this would imply that, technically, all marriages would be deemed civil unions and recognised as such by the secular nature of the government.

California voters correctly voted to amend CA’s Constitution. They did it legally as directed by the CA Constitution. This is nothing other than another example of a Federal Judge overruling the legal mandate, as defined by California law, of the people.

Rights can't be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis, like not giving drivers licenses to people who can't see.

Rights are rights, and the right to a life partnership is a fundamental human right.

The case was decided by the judge largely/partially on the rational basis test, one that I also thought was apropos to counter the Prop 8 interest group squarely on their bullshit beliefs that were the entirety of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

This case is a great litmus test for conservatives, where they have to walk their talk about freedom. What about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't you guys understand?

marcus says

I understand the broader point is sort of asking the culture and the country to officially acknowledge a higher level of acceptance. But hey, at least the trend is good. I would just give it time and save the fight for civil unions granting all the rights of marriage in all states, a more winnable fight.

The major problem with this is that the only license that is offered by the States that offer all of the rights, obligations, and privileges of full status relationships is a "Marriage License" in our country. Another major problem from everyone who argues that we gays should go for "civil unions" and that the government should be issuing "civil union" licenses in place of "Marriage Licenses" is that the reality exists that the only license that offers the equivalent degree of legal status is a Marriage License in the USA. And anyone who thinks that heterosexual couples will turn their Marriage Licenses in to their State in exchange for a Civil Union License in the USA isn't thinking this through. One person on here said that he'd exchange his Marriage License for a Civil Union License. I wonder how his wife feels about that?

Civil Unions were created in States specifically as an alternate form of certifying relationships that are "marriage-like" but not quite marriage. And they don't come with all of the same rights, obligations, and privileges that Marriage Licenses do. They are instruments for creating a second class status to same sex unions, and nothing more, in US law as it exists today.

Therefore, the best solution is that the heterosexuals who have Marriage Licenses keep them and just allow same sex couplse to get Marriage Licenses. It's much more realistic than asking heterosexual couples to turn in their Marriage Licenses to be issued a new Civil Union License in its place. And it's the best way to ensure that same sex married couples receive the same obligations, privileges, and rights as opposite sex married couples do since all of the laws around "civil union/marriage" use the word marriage in them.

So, just to recap, marriage in US law is what they call "civil union" in other countries. Marriage is the legal term for that relationship in the USA. It's not a religious term when used by the State. In our country Civil Unions do not in any way get close to offering the rights, obligations, and privileges of a Legal Marriage in the USA.

Separate is not equal.

simchaland says

n our country Civil Unions do not in any way get close to offering the rights, obligations, and privileges of a Legal Marriage in the USA.

Vermont now has same sex marriage, but for 10 years it first had civil unions that as far as I know did give the same rights as marriage.

By the way, I did not say that hetero couples should turn in their marriage licenses, that was a previous post. In fact I said it's not going to happen. It's not illogical in my view to have civil unions side by side with marriages, even if they are essentially the same. The reason for it is placating the people who want to say "marraige is for man and woman," supposedly on religious grounds. We all know that the real reason is they are using their religion for hating (Jesus would not approve), which isn't new.

It's surprising the success that they've had fighting it. I'm just saying that if for example California had done what Vermont did ( initially) using the term civil union (even if redundant to marriage, but not unequal except in name), then the idiots would not have been able to wage the fight that they did.

It takes away the whole "what did the bible mean by the word marriage ?" argument.

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks

Have they been removed ? Are you talking about rocket launchers, machine guns, bazookas, that sort to of thing?

How can any sane person argue that the line shouldn't be drawn somewhere? There are even international laws on what armies can do.

mikey says

Generally speaking, marriage is basically a religious institution. Because of the constitutional separation of church and state, this would imply that, technically, all marriages would be deemed civil unions and recognised as such by the secular nature of the government.

You got it! So I don't see the gripe, "Marriage" is a religious thing pure and simple.
The paper you get at the court house, just gives your wife rights to all of your crap after she wears you down and whittles you to an early grave.

Re: the polygamy thing...

Mormons don't practice polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons do - they branched off from the Mormon religion when Utah was asking for the US army to help protect them from intruders (such as the native indians). The US govt told them that they'd have to abide by US laws, including no polygamy. FLDS members believed that the epiphany that the head of the church - called a prophet - had wasn't honest & true so they kept on having multiple marriages.

Polygamy offers people the opportunity to live dishonestly, without responsibility to society in general. Until this whole fiasco with Warren Jeffs becoming the self-appointed prophet and running a dictatorship - including disallowing people to speak amongst themselves at all after he excommunicated prominent members who disagreed with him - their lifestyle was low key. People didn't know what was happening out there in the middle of the desert.

One wife is the legally married wife. She pops out a dozen or so kids. The next wife is chosen by the prophet and the husband - and she pops out a dozen or so kids. She also claims not to know who the father is and goes on welfare. As does the next wife. and so on. They often live on the border of Utah & Arizona, so one man can have wives collecting welfare in both states. Less coverups they have to do. They don't pay property taxes because the trust owns the land, so they're drawing benefits without paying in.

They cast out the young men so that there will be more wives for the old guys - and I do mean old. These young men, called lost boys, have no education beyond elementary or junior high school, no skills, no money, no home. They're forced to leave everything that they know. Not just that - the girls are forced to marry as young as 14 to old men they've never actually met.

Because they don't own the land they must pay privately to build the home that they live in, plus pay a huge-ass amount of tithing (hundreds per month) to the prophet who lives high on the hog. While they have no tv, radio, no red cars... the prophet had multiple laptops. The houses that they build are sometimes reassigned by the prophet so that the guy who built it isn't the guy who lives in it - meaning that they have no homestead rights.

People are told where they'll live, what they'll do, and how they'll do it. If they live away from the prophet's hometown, he can call and tell them to sell their house, give him the profits and move to Colorado City/Hildale to live in a substandard place that he gives to them. They must ask the prophet where they can work, if they can work (if they're a woman), and then he takes some of the money.

It's an oppresive society that's terrifying, and isn't reflective of the lifestyle lived by other Mormons. But there are some commonalities, because the church invades members lives and tells them what to do in many instances (such as that they should fight against same-sex marriage).

Sorry to be long winded - but the polygamist society is a closed society with high instances of domestic abuse, substance abuse, and birth defects due to inbreeding. One can't understand it until they've seen it and known people whose lives are torn apart as they blindly follow a mentally ill man who's self-appointed as leader.

RayAmerica may be a little confused about the church being forced to hire married or unmarried gays. It is a simple fact that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as gender, race, religion, national origin, marrital status, or hairstyle is prohibited. You can have the crap sued out of you if you do discriminate. Furthermore, our founding fathers directed that we are entitled to freedom of religion; however, they also stated we also have freedom FROM religion. So in other words, just because a pious majority want to force a minority to accept there religious doctorine then it is indeed unconstitutional. Any reasonably fair, thoughtful person can see that. People can and do all sorts of things that we my find immoral or disturbing. But as long as they aren't victimizing someone else what's it to you? And who are we to judge what things should make us happy? Just mind your own business and live your own life. Now I ask you, ain't that America?

deanrite says

Now I ask you, ain’t that America?

yes. but not ray'samerica.

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Gun control laws are getting thrown out left and right thanks to the explicit protection to keep and bear arms as the Conservative majority prefers to read the 2nd Amendment (plus the Lopez decision from the 90s that threw out Federal gun-free zones near schools as abusing the Commerce Clause).

But what I said was:

"Rights can’t be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis"

For guns, this basically comes down to public safety and undue burden tests.

As a libertarian I think gun control laws are bandaids on a bigger problem, though I have no problem with trigger lock, munitions tagging, licensing restrictions for sales of more dangerous guns, etc.

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment cluster of rights is pretty limited and would be adequately served by eg. the government licensing shooting ranges where gun owners could keep and play with their military-grade guns to their heart's content.

Beyond the 2nd Amendment, I believe there is a common law right of free access to weapons to defend you and yours, something NOT mentioned in the 2nd Amendment at all. However, the weapons of this right are more on the order of sport rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols, not military-grade automatic weapons.

Troy says

Bap33 says

If votes cant remove rights, then explain gun control laws and the removal of my 2nd amendment rights. Thanks.

Gun control laws are getting thrown out left and right thanks to the explicit protection to keep and bear arms as the Conservative majority prefers to read the 2nd Amendment (plus the Lopez decision from the 90s that threw out Federal gun-free zones near schools as abusing the Commerce Clause).
But what I said was:
“Rights can’t be voted away by a majority, without a compelling real-world rational basis”
For guns, this basically comes down to public safety and undue burden tests.
As a libertarian I think gun control laws are bandaids on a bigger problem, though I have no problem with trigger lock, munitions tagging, licensing restrictions for sales of more dangerous guns, etc.
Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment cluster of rights is pretty limited and would be adequately served by eg. the government licensing shooting ranges where gun owners could keep and play with their military-grade guns to their heart’s content.
Beyond the 2nd Amendment, I believe there is a common law right of free access to weapons to defend you and yours, something NOT mentioned in the 2nd Amendment at all. However, the weapons of this right are more on the order of sport rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols, not military-grade automatic weapons.

Troy, calling yourself a libertarian is like the pope calling himself a protestant. It seems you forget what the first American militias were. They were people, who decided to take up arms against their government. As such, it only makes sense that citizens have weaponry equal to any potential abuse of power, including all powers that be. Name any abuser of power over the years that could not have been stopped if the citizenry had the means to defend themselves against that power. The right to defend against abuse of power is what the 2nd Amendment sought to guarantee. Not the right to own a bolt action rifle while the dictators goons outside point assault weapons, tear gas grenades and rocket launchers at you.

We may never see the day that the goons come for you, but if they know you are as heavily armed as they are, it is even less likely to ever happen. *Disclaimer: I do not advocate taking arms up against any government, especially ours.

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp
“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.
----------------------
so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he'd be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

elliemae says

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp

“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.

———————-

so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he’d be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

Evidently they don't see the issue being one of equal protection under the law. No, it's all about adding "gay marriage" to the constitution. That is such twisted BS. As if the 51% of the people who voted for Prop 8 have the right to discriminate against those who don't subscribe to their religious doctrine?

It's pretty sad that so many of us can't even follow simple logic and reason. Instead, we subscribe to dogma and exclusionary thinking to cover our own weak-minded and pathetic limitations.

We've been on this plant for thousands of years and we still want to discriminate and keep other people down. Call me an optimist, but I believe the human race can do better.

Personally, I would be fine with the government getting out of the business of marrying anyone. Everyone gets a civil union, only a church can truly "marry" anyone. Then marriage is left to the church entirely, but the state does not participate. All marriages are annulled and only civil unions are granted. What a concept, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

elliemae says

now there are allegations that the judge may be gay:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50065222-76/gay-walker-judge-case.html.csp
“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.
———————-
so people are thinking he might be biased? What does his sexual orientation have to do with it? with that thinking, he’d be biased if he were heterosexual. In fact, he should be asexual in order to be completely unbiased.

The judge being gays is about the same as blacks voting for Obama. Heterosexuals are split on the right of gays being married, but homosexuals are 99.99999% for it, to have a gay judge decide this matter and not think it had an effect on the outcome is at the least very suspect.

Personally I could care less about the whole issue and I think we have more important things in this country that need attention.

thunderlips11 says

If Heather has two daddies and a mom, then she still has two parents if one dies, and has all financial, emotional, etc. stability that goes with two parents, no?

Honestly, I have no problem with this so long as all parties involved are consenting adults who have a real interest in raising the children and supporting the family. Love and hard work is what keeps a family together, no matter the configuration.

AdHominem says

The right to defend against abuse of power is what the 2nd Amendment sought to guarantee. Not the right to own a bolt action rifle while the dictators goons outside point assault weapons, tear gas grenades and rocket launchers at you.

Actually I think the 2nd Amendment is a bit more subtle than that but I don't want to get into that other than to say any rebellion worth the name will in fact have full access to all the arms it can shoot, cf. 1861-65, and will fail, cf 1861-65 (unless it has Right on its side, but even that may not be enough).

Above I said bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols were a common-law right of being a responsible citizen and have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment's protections.

Deciding gun rights on any 2nd Amendment basis is silly since I think the 9th covers all our freedoms well enough -- the state has to show gun contorl laws pass rational basis and undue burden tests.

Limiting 2nd Amendment rights to places where exercise of them is safe -- licensed gun ranges -- is good enough for me. Everyone should have the opportunity to become proficient at military-grade hardware. That's what the 2nd Amendment's KABA was all about IMO.

sir .. in the real world I can not carry my loaded weapon in my truck. I can not carry my loaded weapon on my side. All of these restrictions were placed on me by removing my rights.

Since we are at the legal portion ... what is the preferred method used by lawyers and judges to prove someone is a practicing deviant, and that the level of deviantness is at a level high enough to allow for inclusion under this law? Anyone have a link to that?

You see ... bazookas and machine guns are "levels" of arms. You suggest there are legally viewed acceptable levels. Lets see the deviant version of acceptable levels, please.

rpanic01 says

The judge being gays is about the same as blacks voting for Obama

This is assuming that all black people voted for Obama. Forgive me if I generalize, but I do believe that black people are all individuals who have the ability to think for themselves. As do gays & lesbians.

I believe that a judge can be unbiased, regardless of his sexual orientation. If not, then heterosexual judges should never be allowed to hear cases involving gay litigants. Female judges should not be allowed to hear cases involving male litigants, nor should male judges hear female litigants. Disputes over pets should only be heard by pet owning judges. Disputes over trailer homes should only be heard by judges who live in trailer parks.

Seriously, a gay judge presiding over such an issue would probably be less inclined to act in a biased manner, because he would go to great lengths to ensure his impartiality.

Bap33,....Are you talkin to me??
(just kidding, sort of. A reference to the movie Taxi driver which btw I should see again. It's been 30 years)

This is a complicated issue, that I am not all that competent to address other than from a very simplistic common sense level. I heard an interesting question posed a while back, I think by Bill Maher. He was referring to the Tea Party types who brought guns to Senator's health care town meetings last year, or other such meetings in the past year. The question was this. IF say a black group or a Latino group of citizens came to similar political meeting that were maybe addressing urban issues or about immigration, bearing guns, what do you think would happen?

It's kind of scary when everyone can carry guns everywhere. Some states do allow it right ? I understand the arguments that say if everyone has a gun, you're home is less likely to be broken in to (when you are home).But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns. That is, what if a majority of people feel that allowing every crazy person (not yet documented as such) to carry a gun in their truck is too expensive a price to pay for you also to be able to have one in yours?

I like guns. Always have. But I agree the need for specific restrictions. As for deviations ? Not sure what you mean. Do you mean how far from the official law can people deviate, without serious consequences ? That is an enforcement question, and is probably going to be somewhat subjective depending on the jurisdiction, and who the offender is and who the judge is.

""But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns."" --- and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.

On the other hand .. ""But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on sexual deviants."" The voters of California have beaten back the deviant beast twice now and each time an activist judge wants to play god. A lone judge does not have the right to veto our votes.

Bap33 says

“”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns.”" — and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.
On the other hand .. “”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on sexual deviants.”" The voters of California have beaten back the deviant beast twice now and each time an activist judge wants to play god. A lone judge does not have the right to veto our votes.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you really think that constitution says we have the right to carry a firearm everywhere we go? Reasonable restrictions to prevent harm to others is just common sense. People using and carrying guns can be a clear and present danger to society at large. That doesn't mean we can't own a firearm, but restrictions are clearly warranted.

Restricting the rights of others to marry based on religious doctrine is not even in the same ball park. The problem is the state is a little too cozy and not separated enough from religion. Civil unions for all is the ticket, marriages become a religious ceremony only. Problem solved.

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of 'liberals' (51%) voted down your right to own a gun? Then a conservative judge says, "Excuse me, but this is unconstitutional." All the liberals start screaming about the judge being biased, playing God, and being a gun-wielding fanatic.

A lone judge DOES have the right to veto our votes if they infringe upon the rights of others and violate constitutional protections. That is why we have judges, to protect us from our own biases and stupidity, among other things.

Bap33 says

“”But there still is a question, what if a majority of people prefer restrictions on guns.”" — and there you have it. We never had a vote on gun restrictions. None. And yet, you suggest we go with majority rule on the removal of my rights were my weapons are concerned. Odd.

Indirectly we should get what the majority wants with our gun restrictions, via our legislators. I would argue that the reason you can't ride around legally with a gun in your truck is because thats what the majority want. Even without a vote. Remember most states don't even have proposition votes the way California does.
a4adam says

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of ‘liberals’ (51%) voted down your right to own a gun? Then a conservative judge says, “Excuse me, but this is unconstitutional.”

Exactly. Which is what would happen.

Let's not forget, this isn't even over yet. It's probably going to the supreme court.

It depends on what "deviant" behavior you are talking about. If you are speaking of "gay" types of sexual activities- oral, anal, devices, bondage, s&m, etc- then you are talking about the same practices many or most heterosexual do or have done in their lives. So what. You gonna waste time and money spying on them to prosecute for some percieved grossly immoral behavior? Sure would insure more jobs for police and the legal system. Most of them never met a law they didn't like. Truth is we have too many laws restricting people from doing things that by and large only affect them.

If you are talking sexual victimization as deviance I would whole heartedly agree. No means no, to disregard this is rape.
Sexual behavior with children is despicable- throw away the key. Sexual enslavement including pimping and slave trade is criminal. But prostitution itself, not my business. Consequenses for the prostitutes or johns or pornstars, not my problem, not my business, they're all adults. Stop wasting my tax dollars bothering these people. Concentrate on theives, thugs, gangland crimes, rapists, murderers, fraudsters, robbers, and molesters.

On guns, don't see a problem having a gun in the car. Don't really see carrying a concealed weapon if you feel threatened during certain situations. Openly carrying a loaded firearm seems to be a bit much too me. I think it could be sort of provacative in some situations, might make others feel uneasy and defensive.

I think lesbians should allowed to get married cuz that's hot.

as for gun control, they do restrict one's rights. All rights are restricted as we have to find the laws and norms that work best as a society, eg. ye olde "yelling fire in the theatre" example.

There is a rational basis for gun control laws -- reducing the arms race between criminals and nutjobs and the police -- and these laws have to pass the undue burden test -- ie are proportionate in their aims of balancing societal interests with the limitations on personal freedom they incur.

Gun owners in the state can be considered a minority in this case and the "tyranny of the majority" does certainly apply, especially for the military-style weapons that were banned outright not too long ago. It's also unfortunate that gun laws meant to apply to urban areas also apply to the great empty spaces of northern and mountainous California. I'd prefer finer granularity in gun laws, so that they applied at the county and city level.

I would LOVE to own and practice with an M4A1, I recognize that the general state of the world requires gun control here in California. I believe I have a 2nd Amendment right to purchase and become proficient in the M4A1's use, but not any carte blanche right to have this powerful weapon at hand (eg. in my apartment in Sunnyvale) or with me at all times in my car.

This is kinda like seatbelt laws. Yes they suck for everyone at the individual level but they are not undue burdens given the overall benefits they bring.

Giving gay couples the full benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law really has nothing to do with this, as the judge's Findings of Fact attempted to show.