The rights of the people of California are struck down by the Supreme Court

You should find a discussion forum in your language.

 

let's see even one.

- - - Updated - - -

let's see even one.

 

Marriage is nothing more than a contract, nothing more and nothing less. State laws are in charge of how contracts between individuals are handled because it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. The only contracts that are under Federal purview are actual specific Federal contracts such as when you sign up for the military you are essentially signing a contract giving up ownership of yourself and some rights or if you are a company working on a Federal project. Some states have no default divorces while others don't. Some states allow you to marry your cousin and in others its illegal. It should be up to each state and the legislature of that state (and by extension the people who vote them in office) as to how marriage laws are drawn up.

In the past people tried to promote marriage by having all sorts of Federal involvement and trying to encourage it. Guess what? The insistence on sticking their noses into other people's business just backfired on them big time. I don't have a particular bone in this race as I see both sides of the gay marriage issue to be flat out wrong, I am just laughing at the people who supported DOMA which was a massive overreach of Fed power, because now it opened the door for their opponents.

 

I guess I didn't say it clearly.

In civil court cases, the plaintiffs (the gay couple) and the State (the defense) are each required to show that the current laws embody benefits that outweigh the costs. The gay couple has no problem showing clear and present injury, in great detail. There are over 1000 Federal laws granting some sort of benefit or privilege to married couples, and being denied these does real harm. On the other side, the State is unable to show ANY benefit from current laws, nor is it able to show any possible harm if the law were eliminated.

So the argument for same-sex marriage boils down to, it confers considerable benefits of a wide variety on the married couple, while injuring nobody else in any way. This is the very essence of a discriminatory law solely for the sake of imposing unnecessary hardship on a minority. Courts don't like that. The US Constitution doesn't like that.

 

And because it is only the opinion of one lower court in one state, it's insufficient. Especially since it's the case that led to the restrictions being codified in law. Obviously quite a few states didn't think it was a sufficient "refutation", either.

 

except you don't give a dam when theirs no benefit and u ignore any benefit's from gay marriage

- - - Updated - - -

English it is happily you don't need to be that good with it to see what's wrong with what you have to say

 

That's clearly a problem that needs to be rectified.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

o ya your selling the lie that laws that ban marriage for others and only includes gay people is some how not the same thing

jus like a law limiting marrage to 1 man and one woman of the same race is not a law against interracial couples because it include a ban on same gender couples and man and goat

 

Here is something for you to contemplate over while reveling in your fantastical summations about "sexuality".
The scale of morality is based on to impact factors, the first being contribution and the second being destructiveness.

Morality impact scale

Destructiveness <----------------> Contribution

Being that homosexuality, fornication, rape, etc do more harm than good, they are to be shunned. The shunning comes as a result of the studying the impact of behaviors, creatures, situations, etc. For instance, beer was first invented in Khemt (What your people call Ancient Egypt) and because of the the negative findings from using the Impact Scale, it was justly banned from the society. This scale has been in existence longer than you can imagine, so for some "Johnnycomelatelies" to take your Doctors of Laws, which are manufactured to to "justify" or excuse inordinate behaviors, as lords beside the founding principals of Khaliqa (Creation) only shows what your are and why the limit of your time in Khaliqa has come to its justified end. Take it or let it alone.

 

Those whose prurient proclivities get them in a tizzy need to bear in mind that marriage contracts are legal arrangements between couples that neither specify nor require carnal capers of any sort.

Whatever hijinks (that may be practiced by heterosexual as well as homosexual couples) that so vex them are as readily indulged in or refrained from without the context of marriage as within.


They may consider entertaining wholesome thoughts rather than speculating over the possibility of someone, somewhere, engaging in intimacies that upset them.

 

first, morality is subjective. second, homosexuality and fornication are not comparable to rape. rape is infringing on another persons rights. homosexuality or fornication are not.

that is all meaningless drivel, having nothing to do with sexuality, what sexual intercourse is meant for, or what you think your magical sky fairy has to say on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

that isn't an argument against same sex marriage. try actually making one.

 

OK, how about an argument against gay marriage in California: VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT and UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINGLING OUT OF JUST CALIFORNIA.

To wit:

 

Complete nonsense. Courts don't make cost benefit analysis to determine the constitutionality of laws. Discrimination must at a minimum be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Limiting marriage to both heterosexual and homosexual couples has NO rational relation to the stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes.(*)

 

And don't forget dixon, that gays were not singled out in California's Prop 8. "Between a man and a woman" disqualifies also, boys and girls [minors] and polygamists. California cannot be told by the fed "sure, you can set standards to include or disinclude same gender marriage" and at the same time say "no, we forbid you from passing disqualifiers to same gender marriage". No mention of Prop 8 being unconstitutional was made. Gays were not made a class either. They just are what they are and they legally do not qualify in California. Yes, they don't, still. That an oligarchy of judges there from San Francisco decided to take away the power of millions of California voters, doesn't mean what they did was legal at all.

California cannot be singled out as "the only state which must uphold gay marriage no matter what they decide for themselves"...

 

the voters never had a right to vote on the constitutional rights of others, so no disenfranchisement. and "singling out" California is a false statement. The courts can only rule on the cases before them.

- - - Updated - - -

the courts say otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

and the courts will go right on ignoring your incorrect interpretation of the how the law works.

 

And one aspect of that contract in every state is this or similiar statutes enacted in every state.
§ 8-204. Presumption of paternity in context of marriage.(*)

(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

Birth of a child obligates only two people. The mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Presumed to be the husband of the woman who gave birth.

 

this has been repeatedly proven false Dixon. in states where same sex marriage is legal, the birth of a child within the marriage creates an obligation and legal paternity of both spouses within the marriage.

 

Yeah, it was the gay district court judge who did that.

 

It must sting knowing that which you so desperately want to not happen is going to, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Want some tissues?

 

his sexuality has no relevance to the ruling.

 

Silly, the random thoughts bouncing around in your head don't prove ANYTHING. That was the Deleware statute. Show me another deleware statute that does the same in the case of a gay married couple. A "man" is still only a man and never a woman. Men never give birth to children and women never father children.

 

We've done this dance hundreds of times Dixon. I'm not going to repeatedly post the same thing over and over every time you post this proven lie.

I know you'll just ignore this but...............

http://www.wicsec.org/resources/1/C...ame Sex Couples Handout - Paikin, Tomioka.pdf

 

Not at all. You people are the ones motivated by emotion and hormones. I have come to expect courts to twist and contort our constitution to produce the result they desire.

 

And you continue to ignore this

Birth of the child didn't create the obligation. The court order created the obligation.