Ever try to get a job in the hair-styling industry. Damn near impossible for us straight dudes. ......BTW. that was a joke for those who like to take everything I say seriously....It doesn't for gay people. You were talking about how much better you would have it if you were a black lesbian. Can you provide links for some affirmative action advantages for gays?Affirmative Action does not exist?I didn't see that one. Wow.Oh yes, most white straight guys are envious of black lesbians and all the advantages they have in our society.You have made some pathetic arguments in the past, but this goes to the top of list.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Loves You
- Start date
I quoted the wrong post, oops.Studies have shown that people with white sounding names are 50% more likely than people with black sounding names to hear back from a company when they send a resume in, even if the resumes are the exact same other than the name. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_97873146/
Two white people and two black people with identical resumes (except the white people had a prison record and the black people did not) sent out resumes for entry level positions. The white people heard back from 17% and the black people heard back from 14%, even though the white people had a criminal record and black people did not. The (fake) jail time for the 2 white people was 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. These people all applied for the jobs in person.
http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Hiring/hiring100803a.html
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
First off, its political process, not voting process. And losing a vote does not make a group powerless. The referendum barely passed and the anti Prop 8 side was able to spend millions in advertising and organized a well funded get out the vote plan. Finally, you may not like how suspect classes are defined, but you need to take that up with the Supreme Court, these are their definitions, not mine.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I'm not sure where you're going with this revolution idea. I'm not suggesting that laws be made in a different way, only that unconstitutional laws be dissolved. I think I've made that clear. I don't favor any one branch over another. If you want to talk about red herrings, this is an oft-used one: the "activist judge" meme. I'm suggesting the judicial branch correct improper application of the law, not make new laws.I think you mean "preclusion," and the argument is simple: it's unconstitutional. Any law can be made, but not upheld. I don't think this one, or any like it, will be in the end.
Why do you think separate but equal is a red herring? If you suggest that same sex couples have all of the rights of married couples and that therefore it's not discriminatory, you need to take a closer look at what you're saying. To you it seems like a reasonable solution, but to those affected it's not. It's intentionally divisive and overtly discriminatory. Again, it's not about you, it's about those being oppressed by the ruling. The analogy holds, and it's a reasonable discussion to have. I'm not sure where "physical manifestation" is a requirement. Common rights afforded to citizens are being obstructed on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, just as they were on the basis of race. Botts makes some nice points on this matter in her 2006 paper "Separate But Equal Revisited: The Case of Same Sex Marriage" here. She concludes with:
With your last paragraph, I think I'm seeing why there's a disconnect here. Courts have historically created this strange hierarchy of what they consider to be important protected classes (suspect class vs. "quasi-suspect" vs. rational basis). It's a clumsy way to handle things, and I assume that this strange gradient of importance is largely an artifact of what society deems as an important group of people worth defending. I say this because the definition of what classes are protected has evolved significantly over time, despite those "white males" best intentions at the time. There are good reasons why Plessy v. Ferguson is thankfully in the rear-view mirror of history. The fact that gender requires less legal scrutiny than race is almost laughable, but that's how it's been interpreted to this point. This allows laws to be argued as not violating the Equal Protection Clause with some historical weight (however legitimate that alone is), but it hardly resolves the issue of whether these classes are being discriminated against or whether these classes are entitled to similar protection under the Constitution.If you feel comfortable with gender and sexual orientation not necessitating inclusion via the 14th Amendment, I suppose that's one argument to be made (it's certainly one that's been upheld historically), but I think people should make it more transparently rather than hiding behind this idea that existing laws are "good enough" or that there are rational arguments to be made about denying people a fundamental right that would have no tangible negative repercussions other than forcing people to be more tolerant. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, there was much ado about all of the negative ramifications of allowing same sex marriages, and that was really beside the point, regardless of the fact that there are no good reasons that the state should deny any couple to marry.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Exactly, and this is a fair point, but let's ask you the question of what you think SCOTUS should do in this situation? Do you think gender and sexual orientation are not worthy of being suspect classes? That's really all that's interesting in this debate. I don't really want to engage someone on this topic that doesn't have a personal opinion or feels no need to defend it. At least let me know whether you're willing to voice an opinion here.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
What school? What are her MCAT scores? It's not so simple. If she's as good of a student as you are implying, there are plenty of medical schools that will take her.Affirmative Action does not exist?I didn't see that one. Wow.Oh yes, most white straight guys are envious of black lesbians and all the advantages they have in our society.You have made some pathetic arguments in the past, but this goes to the top of list.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Which level of scrutiny was used by the Proposition 8 judge to find a state interest to legitimize the discrimination of Proposition 8? The level of scrutiny to apply would only seem relevant once you found that legitimate state interests to begin with.
timschochet
Footballguy
In light of several mistatements by those who oppose the judge's decision, I thought it would be worthwhile to post some of the details of the actual trial from January, as per Wiki:
History of marriage
The plaintiffs called as the first expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar who argued that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage".[49] The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities", which she argued strengthens marriage.[55] She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means".[56] Cott was then cross-examined by David Thompson for the defendants, who quoted books and articles she had written and "asked if she agreed with them".[55]
The defendants argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child rearing.[57][58]
According to numerous psychology organizations, "there is no evidence or logic that supports a conclusion that denying marriage to same-sex couples would encourage heterosexual couples to marry and procreate. To discourage same-sex couples from forming lasting relationships and procreating, in order to protect the privilege, benefits, and status of marriage reserved for the heterosexual majority is kind of naked discrimination through the political power and will of the majority is, of course, exactly what the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit." The groups supporting this statement are the American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy, California Division; the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists ("CAMFT"); CAMFT-East Bay Chapter; CAMFT-Los Angeles Chapter; CAMFT-Marin County Chapter; CAMFT-San Francisco Chapter; Gaylesta, Inc.; the American Family Therapy Academy; the Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy Association of Southern California, Inc.; the Women's Therapy Center; California Therapists for Marriage Equality; and The Gottman Institute.[59]
Discrimination
Professor George Chauncey of Yale University, a social historian who specializes in LGBT history,[55] described how previous government campaigns had attempted "to demonize gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters".[55] He then analyzed campaign material from the Yes on 8 campaign to show how they played upon the same message.[55] He analyzed the words of Dr. Hak-Shing William ("Bill") Tam,[60] which included assertions that, were California to fail to pass Proposition 8, other states would follow and "fall into Satan's hands", and that following legalization of same-sex marriage, the advocates of the "gay agenda" would attempt to "legalize having sex with children".[60] Chauncey connected these messages to the earlier history of government demonizing gays and lesbians which he had previously discussed.[60] Helen Zia, a scholar on Asian American social and political movements who was also asked to analyze those words, explained how her encounters with similar Asian community organizers encouraged her to "[step] into the closet and [slam] the door."[61] David Thompson for the defense cross-examined Prof. Chauncey by focusing on the progress that had been made for mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians in the last twenty years.[60] Thompson noted anti-discrimination laws, support for domestic partnerships, and the proliferation of media like the sitcom Will & Grace and 2005 film Brokeback Mountain.[60] Thompson's line of questioning was intended to establish "whether systemic bias against lesbians and gay men prevents them from being treated by others as equal citizens in the political process".[60]
Professor Gary Segura, a political scientist at Stanford University, said that no other minority groups in America — including undocumented aliens — have been the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than gay men and lesbians.[62] He accused Proposition 8 of being the type of social stigma that makes "gay and lesbian social progress seem like it comes at expense of other people and organizations and it makes the hill steeper".[63] Under cross-examination, defendant witness David Blankenhorn revealed that he believed the principle of equal human dignity applied to gay and lesbian Americans, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before".[50]
Gregory Herek, a professor from UC Davis contended that "structural stigma" in the form of laws like Proposition 8 directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence against LGBT people. He also testified that there is no evidence "conversion therapy" is effective in changing a person's sexuality, and that it "sends a harmful and false message to young people that homosexuality is a disorder", directly leading to more discrimination. During cross-examination, he asserted that "sexual orientation is a combination of attraction, identity, and behavior, and that the complexities researchers face in defining sexual orientation are no different than those they face in defining other characteristics such as race".[64]
San Diego Republican mayor Jerry Sanders testified how he transitioned from believing that domestic partnership was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced", he explained.[65] During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded in prejudice".[66]
Psychological effects
Relationship psychologist Anne Peplau took the stand and argued that individuals gain physical, psychological, and social benefits from being married.[60] Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco, agreed and said that the citizen's improved health would save city emergency health funds.[60] Anne Peplau also argued that the quality and stability of same-sex relationships are similar to those of heterosexual relationships and that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not harm the institution of marriage in any way.[60] Peplau was cross-examined by Nicole Moss, who asked Peplau about the differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but Peplau reiterated there are no significant differences.[60] The plaintiffs also called forward Doctor Ilan H. Meyer to testify on the mental and psychological harms of being denied the right to marry. "Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal." He continued to say that gays and lesbians suffered from "minority stress".[67]
Examining the impact of same-sex marriage on children, the plaintiffs introduced Michael Lamb, a developmental psychologist at the University of Cambridge. He contended that there is a fairly substantial body of literature since the late 1970s that focuses specifically on the adjustment of children parented by gay men and lesbians which provides very good understanding of the factors that affect the adjustment of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. This substantial body of evidence documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. He noted that for significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married. He added that a field of developmental psychology came to the conclusion that what makes for an effective parent is the same both for a mother or a father, and that children do not need to have a masculine-behaving parent figure, a father, or feminine-behaving parent figure, a mother, in order to be well adjusted.[68] Defendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry.[50]
Economics
In an exploration on the economics of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs called forward Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco. He testified that same-sex marriage would aid the city because "married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than single individuals" and that "married individuals are healthier on average and behave themselves in healthier ways than single individuals", saving the city from paying emergency room bills and insurance funds.[67] He also testified that San Francisco would make a large sum of instant revenue from same-sex marriage being legalized, citing Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004.[69] He estimated that the city of San Francisco was losing out on $37.2 million in retail and hotel spending and $2.5 million in sales and hotel tax revenue each year.[70]
San Francisco Attorney Therese Stewart noted in the closing arguments that the city itself was uniquely losing out on potential profits because Proposition 8 dissuaded gay tourists and their families from visiting the "cool, gray city of love" (as Walker referred to it) to get married.[57] She also argued, through testimony by Ryan Kendall and Meyer, that the city was burdened with higher incidents of mental health disorders and the subsequent costs to the public health system.[57]
History of marriage
The plaintiffs called as the first expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar who argued that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage".[49] The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities", which she argued strengthens marriage.[55] She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means".[56] Cott was then cross-examined by David Thompson for the defendants, who quoted books and articles she had written and "asked if she agreed with them".[55]
The defendants argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child rearing.[57][58]
According to numerous psychology organizations, "there is no evidence or logic that supports a conclusion that denying marriage to same-sex couples would encourage heterosexual couples to marry and procreate. To discourage same-sex couples from forming lasting relationships and procreating, in order to protect the privilege, benefits, and status of marriage reserved for the heterosexual majority is kind of naked discrimination through the political power and will of the majority is, of course, exactly what the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit." The groups supporting this statement are the American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy, California Division; the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists ("CAMFT"); CAMFT-East Bay Chapter; CAMFT-Los Angeles Chapter; CAMFT-Marin County Chapter; CAMFT-San Francisco Chapter; Gaylesta, Inc.; the American Family Therapy Academy; the Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy Association of Southern California, Inc.; the Women's Therapy Center; California Therapists for Marriage Equality; and The Gottman Institute.[59]
Discrimination
Professor George Chauncey of Yale University, a social historian who specializes in LGBT history,[55] described how previous government campaigns had attempted "to demonize gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters".[55] He then analyzed campaign material from the Yes on 8 campaign to show how they played upon the same message.[55] He analyzed the words of Dr. Hak-Shing William ("Bill") Tam,[60] which included assertions that, were California to fail to pass Proposition 8, other states would follow and "fall into Satan's hands", and that following legalization of same-sex marriage, the advocates of the "gay agenda" would attempt to "legalize having sex with children".[60] Chauncey connected these messages to the earlier history of government demonizing gays and lesbians which he had previously discussed.[60] Helen Zia, a scholar on Asian American social and political movements who was also asked to analyze those words, explained how her encounters with similar Asian community organizers encouraged her to "[step] into the closet and [slam] the door."[61] David Thompson for the defense cross-examined Prof. Chauncey by focusing on the progress that had been made for mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians in the last twenty years.[60] Thompson noted anti-discrimination laws, support for domestic partnerships, and the proliferation of media like the sitcom Will & Grace and 2005 film Brokeback Mountain.[60] Thompson's line of questioning was intended to establish "whether systemic bias against lesbians and gay men prevents them from being treated by others as equal citizens in the political process".[60]
Professor Gary Segura, a political scientist at Stanford University, said that no other minority groups in America — including undocumented aliens — have been the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than gay men and lesbians.[62] He accused Proposition 8 of being the type of social stigma that makes "gay and lesbian social progress seem like it comes at expense of other people and organizations and it makes the hill steeper".[63] Under cross-examination, defendant witness David Blankenhorn revealed that he believed the principle of equal human dignity applied to gay and lesbian Americans, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before".[50]
Gregory Herek, a professor from UC Davis contended that "structural stigma" in the form of laws like Proposition 8 directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence against LGBT people. He also testified that there is no evidence "conversion therapy" is effective in changing a person's sexuality, and that it "sends a harmful and false message to young people that homosexuality is a disorder", directly leading to more discrimination. During cross-examination, he asserted that "sexual orientation is a combination of attraction, identity, and behavior, and that the complexities researchers face in defining sexual orientation are no different than those they face in defining other characteristics such as race".[64]
San Diego Republican mayor Jerry Sanders testified how he transitioned from believing that domestic partnership was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced", he explained.[65] During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded in prejudice".[66]
Psychological effects
Relationship psychologist Anne Peplau took the stand and argued that individuals gain physical, psychological, and social benefits from being married.[60] Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco, agreed and said that the citizen's improved health would save city emergency health funds.[60] Anne Peplau also argued that the quality and stability of same-sex relationships are similar to those of heterosexual relationships and that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not harm the institution of marriage in any way.[60] Peplau was cross-examined by Nicole Moss, who asked Peplau about the differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but Peplau reiterated there are no significant differences.[60] The plaintiffs also called forward Doctor Ilan H. Meyer to testify on the mental and psychological harms of being denied the right to marry. "Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal." He continued to say that gays and lesbians suffered from "minority stress".[67]
Examining the impact of same-sex marriage on children, the plaintiffs introduced Michael Lamb, a developmental psychologist at the University of Cambridge. He contended that there is a fairly substantial body of literature since the late 1970s that focuses specifically on the adjustment of children parented by gay men and lesbians which provides very good understanding of the factors that affect the adjustment of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. This substantial body of evidence documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. He noted that for significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married. He added that a field of developmental psychology came to the conclusion that what makes for an effective parent is the same both for a mother or a father, and that children do not need to have a masculine-behaving parent figure, a father, or feminine-behaving parent figure, a mother, in order to be well adjusted.[68] Defendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry.[50]
Economics
In an exploration on the economics of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs called forward Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco. He testified that same-sex marriage would aid the city because "married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than single individuals" and that "married individuals are healthier on average and behave themselves in healthier ways than single individuals", saving the city from paying emergency room bills and insurance funds.[67] He also testified that San Francisco would make a large sum of instant revenue from same-sex marriage being legalized, citing Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004.[69] He estimated that the city of San Francisco was losing out on $37.2 million in retail and hotel spending and $2.5 million in sales and hotel tax revenue each year.[70]
San Francisco Attorney Therese Stewart noted in the closing arguments that the city itself was uniquely losing out on potential profits because Proposition 8 dissuaded gay tourists and their families from visiting the "cool, gray city of love" (as Walker referred to it) to get married.[57] She also argued, through testimony by Ryan Kendall and Meyer, that the city was burdened with higher incidents of mental health disorders and the subsequent costs to the public health system.[57]
She wants to go to Indiana. I am not sure her MCAT. I think she plans to sit out this year and get in next year.What school? What are her MCAT scores? It's not so simple. If she's as good of a student as you are implying, there are plenty of medical schools that will take her.Affirmative Action does not exist?I didn't see that one. Wow.Oh yes, most white straight guys are envious of black lesbians and all the advantages they have in our society.You have made some pathetic arguments in the past, but this goes to the top of list.
dparker713
Footballguy
You're mostly rehashing the same grounds, but I'll explain this in more detail. Think of music. When records were sold on vinyl, no matter how well made the records were they could not be exact copies of the original due to physical limitations. However, once music was recorded and sold digitally, you could receive an exact replica of the original recording. IE, physical limitations made separate but equal unattainable in regards to segregated services. Whereas marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are merely collections of legal rights and obligations that can be identical.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
How does an identical "collections of legal rights and obligations" remedy all of the harm of the initial discriminatory act of being denied a marriage license for no good reason?
dparker713
Footballguy
I think the USSC should overturn the entire line of Substantive Due Process cases (including correcting Loving to be decided on EP and not SDP grounds), revive the 9th Amendment, and apply Steven's totality of the circumstances test in lieu of classifications. None of that is ever going to happen though.
dparker713
Footballguy
He wrote the opinion based on rational basis language, though his examination of the law does not seem to comport with that level of scrutiny. And courts first determine level of scrutiny then examine the law on the merits, not the other way around.
dparker713
Footballguy
With the exception of the Vermont Supreme Court, the act of classification has only ever been determined to be a harm in cases involving race. So legally, there would be an uphill battle to show any harm in this case.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Well, no, but I appreciate the clarification. Identical is allowing any two people to marry. There are distinct consequences of creating something different for same sex couples.Judge Walker noted that:
You can disagree, but to call this a red herring is silly.
bosoxs45
Footballguy
If gay marriage destroys nations, why isn't Canada up in flames yet? Or Iceland, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Argentina, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, or Sweden? What about Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, or D.C? What about Mexico City? I haven't heard of any of these places experiencing an apocalypse?
So what's up conservatives? All your fear-mongering got me excited for these countries to go down in flames. What's going on?
So what's up conservatives? All your fear-mongering got me excited for these countries to go down in flames. What's going on?
Males and females have roughly equal voting power. Whites and blacks do not. That's a reason for treating race-based discrimination more skeptically than sex-based discrimination.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Do you find this particularly compelling?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So the new discriminatory language added to the marriage law has no merits under the lowest form scrutiny.
I do think all the substantive due process cases should have been 9th Amendment cases instead.
I think it's at least relevant. The ratio of invidious-to-sensible race-based discrimination in the U.S. is way higher than the ratio of invidious-to-sensible sex-based discrimination, particularly after women gained the right to vote. So applying stricter scrutiny to race-based discrimination than to sex-based discrimination makes Bayesian sense: if race-based discrimination is inherently more likely to be invidious, it rightfully takes stronger evidence to convince us, in any particular instance, that it's sensible.(For a common example of sensible sex-based discrimination, consider separate restrooms for males and females in government buildings. Examples of sensible race-based discrimination are far harder to come by.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Many of us on that are not lawyers see that laws are manipulated by judges to advance their agenda. I know that right to life is not in the constitution but it certainly was one of the core principles in the foundation of this country. And in some cases the law views a baby in the womb as a living being. For example, Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide for murdering is pregnant wife.From what I understand their were no precedents allowing abortion when the supreme court ruled on Rowe vs wade. In fact, the decision overturned laws regulating abortions in every one of the fifty states.dparker713 said:
Yes a constitutional amendment was intended to be a high bar which is my point: Judges are suppose to interpret the law not make it. When they make law they be too powerful and there is no real checks and balances when they over reach. If judges want to make law then we need to have a realistic standard in overturning their decisions that include the legislative and presidential branches. The way it stands now they have more power than 3/4 ( based on the constitutional amendment )of all those we elect to create law.
This is the list:* Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]Bottomfeeder Sports said:It requires them to legally pretend that their marriage is not a marriage. And someone posting such silly nit picky legaldparker713 said:
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.
* The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]
* California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)
If this list is up to date then we need to fix these portions of the domestic partnership laws. I have no problem with that. We do need to be fair.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Legislature and executive branches rewrite unconstitutional laws all of the time. It just happens that in some cases such as unjustifiable marriage discrimination there is no statutory remedy other than eliminating the unconstitutional discrimination. (Hopefully 5 justices agree with this.)I guess what will be interesting in this is that most of the changes to marriage laws in the past fifteen years or so also included bans on pseudo marriage such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. I wonder how this decision could possibly be reversed at the federal level with the argument that "virtually identical rights exists in California" without opening the Baker v Nelson door to challenging these at the federal level.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
To be fair, you need to address this list:This is the list:* Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]Bottomfeeder Sports said:It requires them to legally pretend that their marriage is not a marriage. And someone posting such silly nit picky legaldparker713 said:
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.
* The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]
* California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)
If this list is up to date then we need to fix these portions of the domestic partnership laws. I have no problem with that. We do need to be fair.
[*]Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.
[*]Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.
[*]Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adoptive parents are parents, too. And so are gays who have children naturally.This is why Prop 8 supporters can't pass the rational basis test. They keep saying things aren't . . . rational.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I understand the argument you are making based on the relative instances of discrimination and the likelihood that future claims will follow a similar pattern, but I don't understand why there are prescribed levels of scrutiny. I would think any instance of claimed discrimination that came before the court would be worthy of thorough review. Is this a resource allocation problem?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Balance
Footballguy
What school? What are her MCAT scores? It's not so simple. If she's as good of a student as you are implying, there are plenty of medical schools that will take her.Affirmative Action does not exist?I didn't see that one. Wow.Oh yes, most white straight guys are envious of black lesbians and all the advantages they have in our society.
Med school is NOT that hard to get into with those grades and a decent MCAT.
You can think of it as a resource-allocation problem, but it's not judicial resources so much as legislative resources that are at issue.Pretty much all laws discriminate against somebody. Also, pretty much all laws are drafted less than perfectly optimally — the distinctions they make are either underinclusive or overinclusive; often both. Consider a state law making sixteen the legal driving age. The purpose is to make only competent drivers eligible for a license, but it's really just a rough approximation toward that goal. Plenty of 15-year-olds would make better drivers than plenty of 17-year-olds. Plenty of 15-year-olds are therefore being discriminated against unfairly. But do we really want judges striking down bright-line driving-age requirements and forcing legislatures to make finer distinctions? Probably not. When it comes to discriminating against 15-year-olds, we're not going to force legislatures to make sure their laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest — most laws would not survive such strict scrutiny, and we'd end up with the judicial branch invalidating nearly everything the legislative branch tried to do.
It makes sense to let most laws stand even if they're a little overbroad or whatever. We reserve strict scrutiny only for laws that are inherently suspect because they discriminate against frequent targets of invidious discrimination. If a law discriminates against 15-year-olds, we'll let it stand as long as it's rationally related to a legitimate state interest. If a law discriminates against blacks, we'll let it stand only if it's narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
If we used heightened scrutiny for everything, hardly any laws would survive. This would please libertarians, but nobody else. If we used a rational basis test for everything, nearly all laws would survive, including plenty of invidiously discriminatory laws. The mutli-tiered system of scrutiny strikes a compromise between those extremes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Now that's I've gone back and read this mess, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.
There is common thread in 3 points which is that gays under civil unions will be second class citizens.I don't see it that way. If a gay couple came to and stated that they were married or had a civil union my reaction to either definition would be exactly the same. I think that would be a common phenomena.To be fair, you need to address this list:This is the list:* Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]Bottomfeeder Sports said:It requires them to legally pretend that their marriage is not a marriage. And someone posting such silly nit picky legaldparker713 said:should know that California does not have "civil unions" but "domestic partnerships" and that these do not provide "all the same rights" as marriage, even those bestowed by the state.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.
* The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]
* California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)
If this list is up to date then we need to fix these portions of the domestic partnership laws. I have no problem with that. We do need to be fair.
[*]Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.
[*]Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.
[*]Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
Lets put it another way. Those in favor of gay coupling would approve of both outcomes and those against would not. The status of the person is dependent on peoples POV on the subject not the label but behind it.
the moops
Footballguy
Can you stop this please
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
I think heterosexual "common law" marriages carry a certain stigma with them that conjures a subconscious or in some cases conscious negative reaction when compared to other married couples.
I think the eventual outcome of this debate is to make marriage a religious issue and make whatever coupling occurs become a legal contract between the individuals involved. There will be no benefits to being married and government will be largely out of the marriage business. I don't believe this legal contract will be biased against polygamist , swingers, bi-sexuals, tans-genders ...It is just a contract between people involved in a long term sexual relationship.Which is sad IMHO. Why, because we as men are like Travis Henry. Males generally like to have sex with as many females as we can which results in unwanted children. In the case of Travis Henry he had 9 children by 9 different wives. IMHO marriage laws are beneficial because it (was/is) a legal institution that protects woman and children from philandering males. The vows taken by men and women mitigate our natural tendency to philander.So if the outcome wanted is put same sex coupling on par with heterosexual marriage I believe that will succeed. Not by elevating the respect of homosexuality but by lowering the respect and need for marriage.IMHO marriage laws is about children. Whether is passes a rational biased test I don't know. Marriage has become so subjective that we don't really know what it means anymore. So any rational test will be subjective based on the judges POV.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
If this is true, then why not just accept them as married? Why do we have to go through all this nonsense? Just let them marry and be done with it. Sorry, but your statement here, coming from someone who continues to express an opposition to gay marriage, is incredibly frustating to me.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Tiger Woods down? John Edwards down? David Vitter down? Gee they were all married and they cheated. The part I highlighted is not only sexist toward woman, but as a man, I am insulted. Poor women, they need protection...
Yep there are 7 million bigots in California which votes heavily Democratic. These bigot include a large percentage of blacks and Hispanics. There are billions and billions of bigots in this world . Here a bigot there a bigot everywhere a bigot.It is getting to the point that the word bigot has no meaning. It is like crying wolf.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read the post Tim? I am saying the word used to define gay coupling has little if impact on the respect or disrespect of coupling. Those against the coupling are still against it and those for it are still for it.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
It looks like this is taken from an interview with Brian Brown who is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage.For your entertainment, I present a video from their site:
dparker713
Footballguy
Either you entirely misunderstood the purpose of that post or for some reason you spent time debating a legal case without wanting to discuss the law.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
No, I understood the purpose and was happy to discuss the law, but that was pathetic.
dparker713
Footballguy
Throwing ideas off the top of my head to display the extremely low bar of rational basis review is pathetic? Someone is a tad sensitive.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Why sensitive? More disappointed that the vigor with which you articulate the law isn't matched by some persuasive arguments. It's all good. The cupboard is pretty bare anyway. It's not your fault.
dparker713
Footballguy
What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent. It's all good. You've no idea about the law. It's not your fault.
timschochet
Footballguy
This was the exact defense that the attorneys supporting Prop 8 presented to the judge. And if the various reports can be believed, they made this argument with the exact same sort of arrogance which you are doing here. It was a big fail with the judge, and I suspect it will fail in the 9th Circuit and before the Supreme Court as well.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.
Cassius
Footballguy
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
