The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:No, what I have said is the issue has been split down the middle both by the voters 51-49%, and by the court rulings. If the issue was as clear cut legally, 2 times the court rulings would not have been decided by one vote. In both of these 2 landmark rulings, each side of the argument has strong legal merit.

What is the strong legal merit of a ban against gay marriage? What is the strong legal merit of government getting involve in marriage anyway?

Oh and btw, do you think that the majority should be able to violate the rights of some people based on their sexual orientation?

The fact that they voted in this manner, shows there are more sides to any issue than one, and why we have courts with odd numbers of justices. We have courts with 1,3,5,7 and 9 Justices or Judges in our system. Your view is one sided and your way of looking at it is from one agenda, however on 2 occasions, 7 judges saw it in another way, not from emotions but from sound legal letter of the laws. Which side prevails is no easy answer with many issues. That should not be to hard to understand that the laws may not be simple.

I'm sure the public record of each Justices rulings are easy to find. If you care that much for this issue, I would think you would have read it completely, but you don't care enough to read the others rulings content. I do not need to explain their position, this is their level of legal expertise, how the law is inturpeted and what rights prevail over others. That is why we have these courts, to decide when rights conflict, laws conflict, or public policy is discriminatory. As I said before, the mood of the courts, is swayed by liberal and conservative administrations who appoint Justices based on their Liberal or Conservative stance on issues and the laws.

So you can't articulate the strong legal position for a ban on gay marriage. That's what I figured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8#Ruling

The dissenting judge, Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[202] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[202] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[202] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.

So Smith is not providing a strong legal reason for a ban on gay marriage. He's saying that gays are not worthy of special attention by the courts which is just his opinion.

The optimal partnership for raising children argument is quite flawed. One reason why is that if this principle were applied equally, any sterile person would be banned from marriage. One would have to get a sperm count checked and whatever they do for women to test their sterility before allowing marriage.

It's not right to stop people from getting married because they're sterile.

DIss0n80r wrote:It's not right to stop people from getting married because they're sterile.

Judge N. Randy Smith would logically have to throw sterile people under the same bus he puts gays under.

Why don't you have the same concern for the discrimination to hetrosexuals and civil unions?

greeney2 wrote:Why don't you have the same concern for the discrimination to hetrosexuals and civil unions?

Still no strong legal reason for a ban on gay marriage, eh?

Well to answer your question, I'm unconcerned because heterosexuals can get married.

Not to be mean but most of my gay friends go through a thirty-year relationship in two weeks or less. Meaning, they have sex, say "I love you", move in together, break up, move out and fight over stuff. Followed by several more weeks of drama as all of the friends who see the now ex with someone else.

I say let em at it. Should be good revenue from all the marriage licenses and divorces.

at1with0 wrote:Well to answer your question, I'm unconcerned because heterosexuals can get married.

That was the Supreme Court ruling in the first gay marriage case, where they ruled because of civil unions, gays were not discriminated against. Legally, civil unions has all the same rights as marriage.