California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='04 August 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1280972917' post='2152388']
I love that the phrase "against the will of the people" is being thrown around. What if the people of California decided to vote that Atheism be the official stance of the state? Would a court strike it down as unconstitutional? I mean, it would be against the will of the people, right… that makes it wrong to do, according to your logic.
[/quote]

Right, however the issue here is not discrimination (which the GLT crowd filed suit on), or the attempt to establish a state religion (which atheism is). The people can establish new constitutional amendments that do not violate other constitutional amendments, that is how this government works. Even if a amendment passed by law was unconstitutional, technically the people could go back and strike down whatever constitutional principal it conflicted with through a vote and then change the constitution, however that is unnecessary because prop 8 does not violate the constitution, it grants protections to one of the basic functions of human society. The plaintiffs and the judges attempt to redefine marriage using a nonsensical definition would work against protecting the state and its families and cause long lasting harm to the interests of the state. To see a federal judge attempt to establish such and overturn the consistent will of the voting public to cater to such a political platform is a disturbing trend. To continue to equate same-sex behavior with race or other legitimate rights also continues to be deeply offensive. No legitimate connection to previous civil rights was established. This judges ruling based on an actual reading of the document would be thrown out by anyone with half a brain. If the gay activists can make legitimate, clear, logical points in a courtroom instead of fallacy I have yet to see them do that.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='04 August 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1280957541' post='2152230']
I'm sorry the only way to enforce the liberal agenda is to rule against the will of the People and force it upon them.
[/quote]


One thing that both sides of the political spectrum have in common is their rhetoric regarding the court. Findings that are in line with their political goals highlight the need for the judiciary. A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law. Findings opposed to their political goals show the danger of a small, subversively political collection of unaccountable oligarchs.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='04 August 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1280960938' post='2152278']
I am not happy about this most of all for the children that will be seriously damaged due to same sex unions. Science and psychology have given us every rational reason to reject same sex unions. The data we already have shows that children do not thrive without a mother and a father. We will see dramatically higher statistics of sexual abuse, depression, suicide, and drug use, from same sex union families. History has taught us that whole civilizations fall when life is attacked and ruined from its foundational unit - the domestic church. Natural law, which is what the people of California voted on, knows that marriage belongs between one man and one woman and changing the law cannot change that. Not one man and one man, or one woman and a dog, or one man and five women.

The ruling is not a surprise at all, it is to be expected through this process with our current court system and I do expect the supreme court to rule to overturn the will of the people as well based on an erroneous guiding philosophy - that prohibiting issuing civil marriage licenses causes discrimination against married couples. I truly hope that those defending prop 8 are able to poke holes in that claim and show it for the house cards it is. It no more discriminates against those people than I am discriminating against smokers by banning their ability to smoke in public, or banning a pervert from the man-boy love association from marrying a 8 year old boy. Freedom does not and has never meant being able to do whatever you want.
[/quote]


Actually studies show that children raised by lesbians are best psychologically well-adjusted. You cannot back up your claims for the natural law. I have asked people here again and again and again and nobody can give an even almost viable defense. Until you can, please stop trying to impede the freedoms of others because your book full of weird stories and rules says their relationships are an abomination unto you lord, along with eating lobster.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Hassan

[Hassan]

Children of Lesbian Couples Do Well in School, Life

Monday, June 07, 2010

* Print
* ShareThis

Being raised by a same-sex couple is no hindrance to healthy psychological development, researchers say as the first generation of children conceived by lesbians through donor insemination is coming of age.

In fact, lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father.

The study, which appears in the journal Pediatrics, is the first to follow children of lesbian couples all the way from conception to adolescence.

"There are so many places in the United States where same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt or foster children in need," said Dr. Nanette Gartrell of the University of California, San Francisco, who started the so-called US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study in 1986.

While opponents of same-sex parenting often mention cultural or religious values, some also contend that growing up with two moms or two dads can't be healthy for the child, said Gartrell.

But there isn't any solid evidence that homosexual parenting is any worse or better than its conventional counterpart, according to Gartrell, who is in a same-sex partnership.

"There is not a single study that has shown there are any problems in terms of psychological adjustment" of the child, she said. "The things we know that make for good parenting are love, resources and being very involved in your child's life."

The new findings are based on 77 families of both girls and boys. The researchers interviewed the lesbian mothers about their kids and then rated the teenagers on the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized assessment that has been used for decades. Each teenager also filled out an internet-based psychological questionnaire.

When comparing the results to how mothers living in conventional families rated their teenagers, children of same-sex couples were more competent in school, had fewer social problems, broke fewer rules and were less aggressive.

Based on what the children reported themselves, they did just as well whether or not they knew the identity of their biological father.

However, those teenagers who — according to their mothers — experienced homophobia and bullying did turn out to be more anxious and have more depressive symptoms than their peers. It wasn't clear if the anxiety was a product of the bullying or if it was the other way around.

"What this data shows is that it's not the parenting that seems to be the issue," but rather the stigmatization, said Ian Rivers, a professor of human development at Brunel University in Uxbridge, England.

But he noted that homophobia was on the decline.

"We are starting to see a sea change," he said, adding that there was "an awareness in schools that homophobia is something that is inappropriate."

According to recent data, a good quarter million American children are living with same-sex parents. Rivers, who was not involved in the new study, said concerns about the children's well-being had not come true.

"These children have not faced many of the issues that critics of gay and lesbian parents say they should be facing," he told Reuters Health. "This is why this is such an important piece of work."

It is unclear why kids of same-sex couples would be in better psychological shape than those of heterosexual parents. While the researchers are still analyzing the internet questionnaires, Gartrell said one reason could be that lesbian mothers had planned their parenthood carefully and were prepared to help their children though any discrimination they might face.

"These were chosen children, they weren't accidents," Gartrell said.

[Hassan]

The link didn't work, so I just copied it. The source is fox news, you can look it up.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1280968376' post='2152349']
Its also the only way to defeat the liberal agenda, to rule against the will of the people and force pro-life/anti-abortion laws upon them. i dont think you would have much trouble with the method used in that case.
[/quote]
actually, more of the country is pro-life vs. anti-life.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hassan' date='04 August 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1280976892' post='2152429']
A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law.
[/quote]
Fragments, ftl

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' date='04 August 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1280976892' post='2152429']
One thing that both sides of the political spectrum have in common is their rhetoric regarding the court. Findings that are in line with their political goals highlight the need for the judiciary. A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law. Findings opposed to their political goals show the danger of a small, subversively political collection of unaccountable oligarchs.
[/quote]
A homosexual judge overturning a second populous vote and ruling in favor of homosexual marriage is "disinterested?"

[quote]Children of Lesbian Couples Do Well in School, Life[/quote]
This speaks more about the tolerance of our nation. Do not confuse tolerance for acceptance.

I do not trust the study:
1. Because it's headed up by a University of CA in San Francisco professor.
2. The population sample knows they are being monitored and I'm sure they know why.

[ThePenciledOne]

Case in point, the Government should have never had gotten involved with marriage. Most religions consider marriage to be sacred (of course). So, when we find say the homosexuals distorting what we hold near and dear of course we shall fight it. The thing is that given the government rhetoric of Civil Unions, Marriages etc. we have lost in the term shuffle what is really going on.

Let the homosexuals receive their rights through whatever, because that is their Constitutional right, but please leave the 'Marriage' term out of the law. It is the Government's own fault forgetting stuck in the middle of this. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals receiving tax cuts or whatever else that other couples receive, it is the fact that 'Marriage' has to describe it, when Civil Unions can do just that.

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='05 August 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1281020700' post='2152599']
A homosexual judge overturning a second populous vote and ruling in favor of homosexual marriage is "disinterested?"[/QUOTE]

Reread. You missed my point.


[QUOTE]This speaks more about the tolerance of our nation. Do not confuse tolerance for acceptance.[/QUOTE]

What?

[QUOTE]I do not trust the study:
1. Because it's headed up by a University of CA in San Francisco professor.[/QUOTE]

[url="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"]That is a very valid objection[/url]
[QUOTE]
2. The population sample knows they are being monitored and I'm sure they know why.
[/quote]
Right, so those kids brilliantly concealed all their deep psychological trauma to further the homosexual agenda.


I'm sorry, but this is why your side is losing on this issue. You are grasping at straws and it is obvious. This one court issue doesn't matter. I'm happy it happened but it was not necessary. Popular trends are shifting on a national, aggregate level.

http://www.pollingreport.com/penp0908.htm

Edited August 5, 2010 by Hassan

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='05 August 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1281020904' post='2152601']
Case in point, the Government should have never had gotten involved with marriage. Most religions consider marriage to be sacred (of course). So, when we find say the homosexuals distorting what we hold near and dear of course we shall fight it. The thing is that given the government rhetoric of Civil Unions, Marriages etc. we have lost in the term shuffle what is really going on.

Let the homosexuals receive their rights through whatever, because that is their Constitutional right, but please leave the 'Marriage' term out of the law. It is the Government's own fault forgetting stuck in the middle of this. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals receiving tax cuts or whatever else that other couples receive, it is the fact that 'Marriage' has to describe it, when Civil Unions can do just that.
[/quote]

I agree partially. I think that whatever is decided on the matter should be decided by states themselves. The US Constitution nowhere defines marriage. I think that whatever the US Constitution doesn't address should be able to be decided on by the states...and this issue was. This is why I'm unhappy with the judge's decision. Prop 8 was a citizen-initiated referendum that was voted on by the people of California.

Personally, I think that if the law (which I haven't bothered to read) allows for some type of civil union, then they should at least try for that. Having a gay judge overturn a legal ban on gay marriage isn't going through the political process. More ideally, I wish that the government would get out of marriage altogether and just give everyone civil unions. Marriage is, by nature, sacred, so if you want to get married, you should be going to your place of worship anyway. Anyway, that's my spiel.

Edited August 5, 2010 by iheartjp2

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1281023517' post='2152624']

I'm sorry, but this is why your side is losing on this issue.
[/quote]
By what standard are we losing?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='04 August 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1280972917' post='2152388']
I love that the phrase "against the will of the people" is being thrown around. What if the people of California decided to vote that Atheism be the official stance of the state? Would a court strike it down as unconstitutional? I mean, it would be against the will of the people, right… that makes it wrong to do, according to your logic.
[/quote]

A logical point.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='04 August 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1280976892' post='2152429']
One thing that both sides of the political spectrum have in common is their rhetoric regarding the court. Findings that are in line with their political goals highlight the need for the judiciary. A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law. Findings opposed to their political goals show the danger of a small, subversively political collection of unaccountable oligarchs.
[/quote]

"A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law." By the very [i]nature [/i]of his position, a judge, who is paid by the State, and whether or not he yields to the base pleasure of possessing power, is not disinterested, not apolitical, and not objective.

Have you seen many apolitical judges? I do remember that a few Supreme Court judges in the 1930's, who were calling many of F.D.R.'s actions unconstitutional, very [i]quickly[/i] fell in line when F.D.R. threatened to stack the court with his own cronies. Rather than do the right thing, the judges, recognizing who buttered their bread, instantly rolled over, wagged their tails and wet themselves.

In other words, they became F.D.R.'s political cronies. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no hope." Don't have anything to do with "Men of blood, in whose hands are crimes, whose right hands are full of bribes."

~Sternhauser

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1281023517' post='2152624']
Reread. You missed my point.[/quote]
I tried to make something out of your broken Engrish.

[quote]What?[/quote]
You quoted the article. I assumed you read it. I read the Time magazine version to get the ultra-left version.

[quote][url="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"]That is a very valid objection[/url][/quote]
What's the rationale behind a lawyer asking for a change of venue? Ad-hominem attack?

[quote]I'm sorry, but this is why your side is losing on this issue. You are grasping at straws and it is obvious. This one court issue doesn't matter. I'm happy it happened but it was not necessary. Popular trends are shifting on a national, aggregate level.

http://www.pollingreport.com/penp0908.htm
[/quote]
Why are you pointing to polls of what the people think? In California, they had two polls called [i]elections[/i] which expressed their opinion on this issue. This judgment proves polls or elections or any other measure of the opinion of the people does not matter. This is legislating from the bench.

This judgment is dangerous on multiple levels; approving immoral behavior is only one.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='04 August 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1280972917' post='2152388']
I love that the phrase "against the will of the people" is being thrown around. What if the people of California decided to vote that Atheism be the official stance of the state? Would a court strike it down as unconstitutional? I mean, it would be against the will of the people, right… that makes it wrong to do, according to your logic.
[/quote]
ACLU is already working on this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='05 August 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1281020904' post='2152601']
Case in point, the Government should have never had gotten involved with marriage. Most religions consider marriage to be sacred (of course). So, when we find say the homosexuals distorting what we hold near and dear of course we shall fight it. The thing is that given the government rhetoric of Civil Unions, Marriages etc. we have lost in the term shuffle what is really going on.

Let the homosexuals receive their rights through whatever, because that is their Constitutional right, but please leave the 'Marriage' term out of the law. It is the Government's own fault forgetting stuck in the middle of this. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals receiving tax cuts or whatever else that other couples receive, it is the fact that 'Marriage' has to describe it, when Civil Unions can do just that.
[/quote]
While you may see nothing wrong with homosexual couples being awarded special tax cuts or other benefits for their sodomy, the Church most certainly does.

Since you list your religion here as "Catholic," you just might be interested in what our current Holy Father has to say on this topic:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I strongly suggest reading the entire document, but here are few key points:
[quote]From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) [b]Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b][/quote]

[quote]From the biological and anthropological order

7. [b]Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.[/b] The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.[/quote]
[quote]From the social order

8.[b] Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.[/b] If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.[/quote]
[quote]From the legal order

9. [b]Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.[/b][/quote]

[quote]CONCLUSION

11. [b]The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

Marriage between man and woman is the basis of the family, and of human society itself, and it is for this reason that marriage is awarded benefits by the state. A same-sex sodomitic couple does not deserve any legal recognition or benefits not given to single persons.

I realize, unfortunately, that this will likely fall on deaf ears, as most so-called "Catholics" today prefer various current amoral politically-correct ideologies to Catholic moral and social teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='05 August 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1281024637' post='2152635']
I agree partially. I think that whatever is decided on the matter should be decided by states themselves. The US Constitution nowhere defines marriage. I think that whatever the US Constitution doesn't address should be able to be decided on by the states...and this issue was. This is why I'm unhappy with the judge's decision. Prop 8 was a citizen-initiated referendum that was voted on by the people of California.[/quote]
I agree too, as would the founding fathers.
Such activist rulings are in blatant contradiction to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:
[i][b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/b][/i]

The U.S. Constitution nowhere grants the federal government the power to redefine marriage, nor to force this re-definition of marriage on the States respectively.

But, unfortunately, federal judges have abandoned actually interpreting the Constitution long ago, in favor of simply ruling in accord with their own personal ideologies - to hell with what's actually written in the Constitution.

The idea of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government, but federal judges blithely rule however they like, making them a tyranny.

The pro-homosexual bleeding hearts on here may think that's a wonderful thing, but if federal courts decided (while continuing to disregard the Constitution) to rule in ways opposed to their leftist ideologies, they'd be singing a different tune.


[quote]Personally, I think that if the law (which I haven't bothered to read) allows for some type of civil union, then they should at least try for that. Having a gay judge overturn a legal ban on gay marriage isn't going through the political process. More ideally, I wish that the government would get out of marriage altogether and just give everyone civil unions. Marriage is, by nature, sacred, so if you want to get married, you should be going to your place of worship anyway. Anyway, that's my spiel.
[/quote]
If you "heart" JPII, you might want to consider the Church's "spiel" on homosexual "civil unions." See my reply to Pencil-guy above.

[Semper Catholic]

Californians are largely idiots. It's generally a good idea to rule against the majority of them.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' date='05 August 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1281029061' post='2152709']
If you "heart" JPII, you might want to consider the Church's "spiel" on homosexual "civil unions." See my reply to Pencil-guy above.
[/quote]

Yes, I did see it. As I said before, doing away with marriage by the state altogether would be fine with me. I know it wouldn't be fine with you and a lot of other people, and [i]probably[/i] not the Church, then again, it's completely fine with the Church (particularly in the US) that the US doesn't enforce control of its borders (particularly the southern one). That, however, is a completely different can of worms that I'm not willing to open. Just something to think about.

Y'know, actually, on second thought, I'll get into it a little bit. For centuries, the Church and a multitude of states in Europe were intertwined. Since the rise of democracy (which I'm sure you're a fan of), the Church has lost a lot of the influence and power that it once enjoyed. Marriage, a largely social and cultural sacrament, was built into the fabric of society due to this. Marriage is a long-standing tradition, often cited to be older than the state itself. What I'm getting at is the idea of defending a tradition, especially one as good and as old as marriage, is definitely noble. However, to avoid things like this (events in California and other states so far), I think it would be best if the US just got rid of marriage by the state altogether, give civil unions (which the state itself can morally define) and leave marriage to those with the power invested in them from God to recognize.

If the Church in the US and elsewhere, however, continues to recognize this responsibility of the state to promote marriage, yet fails miserably to recognize the sovereignty of an independent state to make its own laws and to regulate who comes in and goes out, that's a bit lopsided, don't you think? I know this is slightly off-topic, but I think it's a point worth examining. And by examining, I don't mean ticking off snarky point after point. *coughsocratescough*

Edited August 5, 2010 by iheartjp2