Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Nurvingiel]

Why not give it a shot? *Ba-dum-tshh*
You might be pleasantly surprised. And in Canada they give you a doughnut afterwards.

[Insidious Rex]

Well this is interesting. I guess those crazy activist judges are at it again eh?

Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
'No Rational Purpose' to Limit Marriage to Opposite Sex, Judge Writes
By Lisa Leff
The Associated Press
Monday, March 14, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

In a hearing in December, Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged that California is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he maintained that the state has a defensible reason for upholding the existing definition of marriage as part of an important tradition.

"State law says there is a fundamental right to marry," he told Kramer. "We concede that. State law also says marriage is a contract between a man and a woman."

But a deputy city attorney, Therese Stewart, criticized "the so-called tradition argument," saying the meaning of marriage has evolved over time. As examples, she cited now-overturned bans on marriage by interracial couples, or laws that treated wives as a husband's property.

Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. That ruling applies only in the city but could extend statewide if upheld on appeal. Similar cases are pending in trial courts in Connecticut and Maryland.

But don’t get too excited either way. Its certainly going to be appealed. And then down the road if the discriminators pass a state constitutional amendment none of this will matter. Ill be glad when a more sensible generation comes into adulthood quite frankly.

[Rían]

Y'know, IRex, this is a sensitive subject, and entirely dependant upon one's worldview. Would you please not name-call? ("the discriminators" ) I know you think I'm discriminating against people, but that is such a loaded word, that I wish you wouldn't use it. Could you please change your wording? That term is just loaded with hate. I would hope that at least you see I don't hate anyone.

I have loads of opinions about YOUR opinions and why you hold them but in these sensitive subjects, I really restrain my language when I talk about them, because I respect you as a person, and realize you are not trying to hate someone or look down on them (even tho YOU are discriminating in this area, too!), and I don't want a good discussion lost because of a careless choice of words.

I agree that California probably has more than its fair share of twits in the general populace, but really, to have a judge throw out the majority opinion of the state is really rather arrogant, IMO. Why should one judge in one city trample all over the clearly expressed will of the good people of California?!

[Insidious Rex]

Because its descrimination to me. Plain and simple. Its glaringly obvious. I didnt qualify it as malicious descrimination. I would hazard a guess that the majority of those who believe its ok to descriminate against homosexuals do so not out of malicious intent but out of a combination of ignorance and cultural indoctrinization. And yes if you think IM ever being discriminatory please say so. You know very well I would have no problem with you calling it like you see it rather then sugar coating things and avoiding real communication. But frankly I dont see how in the world allowing others to have the same rights as one group (heterosexuals) could ever be mistaken as discrimination.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

[Nurvingiel]

...thus ensuing another round of 'is marriage a right or a priviledge' debate. (See all my previous posts on the matter. I think people already know where I stand on this whole issue... ad nauseum.)

Though I agree with IRex in principle, I understand where RÃ*an is coming from with respect to wording. (My, this is a comfortable fence I'm sitting on.)

I think an excerpt from the Wikiedia entry on discrimination is relevant here:
(Follow the link to read the whole article if you want. Some other parts are also relevant.)

Invidious discrimination involves formally or informally classifying people into different groups and according the members of each group distinct, and typically unequal, treatments, rights and obligations without a rational justification for the different treatment. If there is rational justification for the different treatment, then the discrimination is not invidious. The criteria delineating the groups, such as gender, race, or class, determine the kind of discrimination.

Invidious discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination), ethnic background, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, preference or behavior, results of IQ testing, age (ageism) or political views. Discrimination on the basis of such grounds as subcultural preference (Punks, Hippies, Mods vs. Rockers) is also common. In 2003, Robert W. Fuller coined the term rankism in his book Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank to describe negative discrimination predicated on rank difference between individuals (for example, a customer humiliating a waitress or a boss picking on an employee).

The effects of invidious discrimination span the spectrum from mild, such as slow or unhelpful retail service, through racial and ethnic slurs, denial of employment or housing, to hate crimes and genocide.

Use of the term carries the implication that the factors on which the invidious discrimination is based are intrinsically irrelevant to the decision being influenced. Generally, the aggrieved group is considered by the discriminator as inferior to others.

Are gay people currently being discriminated against? Yes. Heterosexual people receive more benefits from the government than gay people. They are given preferential treatment. However, as IRex already said, they are not doing it for hateful reasons. (Certainly not in this thread anyway.)

[Insidious Rex]

Interesting that your definition specifically points out:

If there is rational justification for the different treatment

And the judge commented in his decision that

It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners

Not a coincidence I would think...

Restricting gays from marrying is neither rational or fair.

[inked]

I bumped the marraige thread.

I make rational arguments there, if you care to look.

[Nurvingiel]

Nice bump over there Inked. I posted.

I enjoyed your rational posts Inked. I made rational counter-arguments.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

OH MY GOODNESS! Do you mean when I vote I can actually THINK about what I'm voting on?! You mean there ISN'T a secret rule somewhere that I have to vote for what is traditional, even if it's against my reason?! I thought that when the Defense of Marriage act came up for a vote before the good people of California that we didn't have an OPTION to choose one box or the other; we had to choose what was "always done so before"!! Oh, what a REVELATION! [/sarcasm]

The judge's comments are the kind of insulting remarks that, sadly, I see all too often (tho not always) from the liberal side. Reminds me of the comment from Michael Moore (IIRC) that everyone that voted for Bush was "stupid". People like these are acting in a closeminded and intolerant way, IMO - they actually believe that no one can think and reason and come to any other conclusion but theirs. Wake up and smell the coffee! People all over the world have different beliefs and are rational, caring people! People with different beliefs are not necessarily stupid!

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners" - why don't you just call people with different opinions from yours "stupid" and get it over with? As I said before, that is the tack taken all too often (tho not always) by liberals. If they can't win over a majority vote by reason (lay out their arguments before the people and persuade them), then they resort to insults ("no rational purpose") and bullying (a judge overturning the majority vote of the entire state).

Persuade us, people! This is a democracy. If you can't get the people of California to vote for your issue, perhaps you're wrong! But don't resort to insults and bullying.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think liberals (this is a very diverse group of people) insult opposing views any more than convservatives (this is also a very diverse group of people) insult the opinions of those that oppose them.

Just had to stick up for liberals there. I feel your pain RÃ*an. As someone who is socially liberal (no not that way! ), and therefore a liberal, I've heard more than enough insults too. Not from you though.

As a liberal, I do not find the opinions of those that disagree with me stupid. However, I am disagreeing with them for a reason. I may feel one or more things about their opinion - that it's: incorrect, misinformed, not applicable to today's society, not supported by relevant data or examples, based on poor management policies, or based on another opinion with which I disagree. (Depending on the extremety or number of these cases, I may also conclude that this opinion is stupid. )


Right... erm... here's your topic back.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

Because its descrimination to me. Plain and simple. Its glaringly obvious. I didnt qualify it as malicious descrimination...

Yes, I know you think it's discrimination, and thank you for not saying it was malicious. It was just "the discriminators" phrase that bothered me (as opposed to something like "I think this is discrimination!") since discrimination has so many emotional overtones. For me, there's a big difference between calling a person something (e.g., "you're a discriminator!"), and saying they are acting in a certain way (i.e, "you're discriminating when you do that!"). DO you see what I mean? Thanks for your consideration; I was probably too sensitive. I know your heart is kind, and you're fair to me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Restricting gays from marrying is neither rational or fair.

Is your opinion based on your opinion?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think liberals (this is a very diverse group of people) insult opposing views any more than convservatives (this is also a very diverse group of people) insult the opinions of those that oppose them.

Please re-read my post; if you notice, I didn't claim that of ALL liberals I gave specific examples of what SOME liberals have done, and I see that type of behavior MORE OFTEN from liberals. IMO, Ann Coulter, tho often right, is an example of a conservative that is insulting. But the vast majority of insulting behavior (like it's "stupid" to believe a certain way) is exhibited by liberals, IMO. Michael Moore and this judge are specific examples.

I'm also not saying that the vast majority of LIBERALS are insulting; just that the vast majority of insulting statements COME from liberals. That's a BIG distinction!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i think the term 'liberal' is mis-leading in itself

it seems to mean something different to americans than i would have it mean

liberal, by it's very nature, supports freedom, choice and equality
liberalism is central politics
conservatism is right of centre
socialism is left of centre
communism is left wing
fascism and national socialism are right wing (but very muddled)

but i digresss...oo, a squirrel....
<runs off to chase squirrel with piece of bread>

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

And yes if you think IM ever being discriminatory please say so. You know very well I would have no problem with you calling it like you see it rather then sugar coating things and avoiding real communication.

IRex, I certainly hope you don't think I avoid real communication! But I've just found that real communication takes place better when people watch their language and speak carefully, otherwise it turns into a big argument and an insult-fest, and that's not communication! (at least useful communication!)

Let me know if I understand your position on this:
You think that other marriage restrictions, like age, closeness of relation, number of participants, and current marital status are fine to keep; right? If so, why, and what do you base your opinion on?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I know you think it's discrimination, and thank you for not saying it was malicious. It was just "the discriminators" phrase that bothered me (as opposed to something like "I think this is discrimination!") since discrimination has so many emotional overtones. For me, there's a big difference between calling a person something (e.g., "you're a discriminator!"), and saying they are acting in a certain way (i.e, "you're discriminating when you do that!").

um so if someone discriminates they arent necessarily a discriminatOR? sorry you lost me.

Is your opinion based on your opinion?

No but my statement is based on simple logic.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i think the term 'liberal' is mis-leading in itself

it seems to mean something different to americans than i would have it mean

Yes, I think it's a little different in the US.

liberal, by it's very nature, supports freedom, choice and equality

Well, I certainly think that "liberal" judges should support the equality of the voters then! (one person, one vote) and the freedom and choice of people, by honoring people with different backgrounds and allowing votes on the issues.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

um so if someone discriminates they arent necessarily a discriminatOR? sorry you lost me.

To me, a "discriminator" implies that they are characterized, in ALL their actions, by discriminating (as opposed to saying someone is discrimating in a specific instance).

It's just that I've found that calling a specific ACTION discriminating (for example), instead of calling the PERSON discriminating, is more accurate and less provoking, and makes the conversation less likely to erupt into anger, where no one can talk.

No but my statement is based on simple logic.

Please elaborate

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let me know if I understand your position on this:
You think that other marriage restrictions, like age, closeness of relation, number of participants, and current marital status are fine to keep; right? If so, why, and what do you base your opinion on?

Im pretty sure me and others have broken down each of those situations for you on a number of occasions in the past on this thread (well before they cut off a huge chunk of it... ). Would you like me to do it again? Suffice it to say that as long as willing adults can give consent then theres no rational or logical reason to discriminate against them and refuse them the same things that you have access to. Its arbitrary and unfair. Just as limiting peoples rights based on their skin color is.

[Rían]

oh, I know what your reasons are, but it seems that this discussion is taking off again, so I was asking you to restate them for other people that are new.