California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Apeman81]

Quote by: tivodan1116 "the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place" - Earl Warren

Which has nothing to do with this court decision. Nor was it cited in the decision.

But it sounds good though.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Apeman81 Which has nothing to do with this court decision. Nor was it cited in the decision. But it sounds good though.

You are advocating "civil unions" for gays and "marriage" for straights. Separate but supposedly equal.

My remark was merely a reflection on that.

The court decision was the legally correct one. That is all that matters. It is not the job of the judicial branch to do the "will of the people", it is their job to protect the rights of the individual, which is often exactly counter to the will of the people.

Until people understand that, people like you will always make strange and irrelevant comments that the courts disobeyed the "will of the people" in making this decision or that one.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You are advocating "civil unions" for gays and "marriage" for straights. Separate but supposedly equal. My remark was merely a reflection on that. The court decision was the legally correct one. That is all that matters. It is not the job of the judicial branch to do the "will of the people", it is their job to protect the rights of the individual, which is often exactly counter to the will of the people. Until people understand that, people like you will always make strange and irrelevant comments that the courts disobeyed the "will of the people" in making this decision or that one.

Thank you.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman You realize that the extent of this decision was to change the name of a same sex union from "civil union" to "marriage", a term heretofore reserved for opposite sex couples. No other changes were affected by this decision.

Yeah... so?

The decision held that all citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the law", as stated in the constitution. Saying that one citizen can get legally married while another citizen can only get a civil union is like saying that it's ok for blacks to be forced to go to segregated schools, because all schools are the same. They're not the same and it's not equal protection. Period.

Quote by: Apeman So the people voted to maintain a verbal differentiation. Four people decided that the others were wrong.

Try to get it through your head, Apeman. When a case is brought before the Court that questions the constitutionality of a law, it's the JOB of those four people to decide when a law does or does not conform to the Constitution... whether the people like it or not. Beside, polls now show that 51% of Californians now support same sex marriage.

Quote by: Apeman Which has nothing to do with this court decision. Nor was it cited in the decision.

Seperate but equal has EVERYTHING to do with this decision.

One more time... it's about EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Marriage, like public education, is a legal structure available to citizens of California and therefore ALL CITIZENS are entitled to it.

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: maximdewinter IHowever, what has changed with this law is that it could soon be considered "harassment in the workplace" should any employee express their religious belief that gay marriage is against the laws of God. An employee could be sued or fired for the "free exercise of religion" and unfortunately it would be Congress (the government passing anti-discrimination laws) doing the prohibiting.

I read today that last summer four San Diego firefighters sued the city of San Diego on sexual harassment grounds because they were required to participate (over their objections) in a gay pride parade. They were afraid that their jobs would be suspended if they refused to appear. Should they have been forced to participate in a "political rally" of this sort when it was against their beliefs?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: maximdewinter I read today that last summer four San Diego firefighters sued the city of San Diego on sexual harassment grounds because they were required to participate (over their objections) in a gay pride parade. They were afraid that their jobs would be suspended if they refused to appear. Should they have been forced to participate in a "political rally" of this sort when it was against their beliefs?

Link? I can't comment until I can separate your distortions from what's really happening in the case.

[Sonart]

.

Tivodan, I live in San Diego, and I can vouch that Maxim's story is correct. I just don't know what it has to do with Gay marriage.

Quote by: maximdewinter However, what has changed with this law is that it could soon be considered "harassment in the workplace" should any employee express their religious belief that gay marriage is against the laws of God. An employee could be sued or fired for the "free exercise of religion" and unfortunately it would be Congress (the government passing anti-discrimination laws) doing the prohibiting.

Oh horse poop. What you're worried about is that simply being a Christian will no longer give you a free pass to say any damn thing you like about others. It has nothing to do with "free excercise of religion"... you're free to sit and pray at your desk all you like. What you can't do is preach to the rest of your fellow workers against another fellow worker...

...any more than I could stand up and preach that abolishing slavery was wrong because it's condoned in the Bible. Which it is. Or that the black race is so because they're being punished by God. Hey, we have a right to worship as we choose, right? And by maxim's definition, 'worshiping' includes harassing others for what you believe.

.
.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter I read today that last summer four San Diego firefighters sued the city of San Diego on sexual harassment grounds because they were required to participate (over their objections) in a gay pride parade. They were afraid that their jobs would be suspended if they refused to appear. Should they have been forced to participate in a "political rally" of this sort when it was against their beliefs?

I googled and found the story. (ABC News: Firemen Sue: 'Forced' Into Gay Pride Duty) From what I can see, this was a combination of 2 things at work. 1) They were forced to participate because of an ill-advised decison of their station chief. It was stupid and it was wrong. They had a volunteer crew who was unable to particpate because of a last minute family emergency, so the chief ordered another crew, who had not volunteered, to take their place. That should not have happened. 2) This is a headline grabbing, piece of crap case brought on by people with no sense of proportion but with the letter of the law probably on their side. I've been to plenty of Pride Parades. Can the participants be over the top and lewd? You betcha. Does it really constitute being subjected to a hostile work enviroment? Not in my estimation. I would feel the same way if it were a lesbian firefighter who was forced to participate in a St. Patrick's Day parade and had to listen to straight men tell her how sexy she looked in her uniform. Women put up with this crap every single day and do not file suit. They did not have to be there every day, and the behavior was not employee to employee, it came from the public, who the depatment can not control.

A lot of fuss over not much. In the end, I have to say the Captain should face some sanction for making a stupid decision, but the facts of the case are not that serious. If those guys had been assigned to cover the route for safety purposes, they would have faced the same crap and had no basis for suing. They need to grow some balls.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . Tivodan, I live in San Diego, and I can vouch that Maxim's story is correct. I just don't know what it has to do with Gay marriage. Oh horse poop. What you're worried about is that simply being a Christian will no longer give you a free pass to say any damn thing you like about others. It has nothing to do with "free excercise of religion"... you're free to sit and pray at your desk all you like. What you can't do is preach to the rest of your fellow workers against another fellow worker... ...any more than I could stand up and preach that abolishing slavery was wrong because it's condoned in the Bible. Which it is. Or that the black race is so because they're being punished by God. Hey, we have a right to worship as we choose, right? And by maxim's definition, 'worshiping' includes harassing others for what you believe. .

Yes Tivodan, Sonart lives in San Diego and the story is true. I like how you automatically assume I have "distorted" the story. What is that all about?

Sonart, the issue here is that the California supreme court equated discrimination against gay marriage with discrimination against interracial marriage. My original point was ..... what is to prevent the California government from treating those who oppose same sex marriage as racists and to use government imposed anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws against those people for their religious beliefs. I'm talking about federal and state laws not private corporation workplace rules about behavior.

To find equivalence: How would San Diego treat firefighters who objected to marching in a Martin Luther King Jr. parade? Would they have grounds to fire them?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 A lot of fuss over not much. In the end, I have to say the Captain should face some sanction for making a stupid decision, but the facts of the case are not that serious. If those guys had been assigned to cover the route for safety purposes, they would have faced the same crap and had no basis for suing. They need to grow some balls.

Here's a lot of fuss over not much and some OSU professors who need to grow a set of balls too.

ADF: OSU librarian slapped with “sexual harassment” charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty

And a snippet from an article about this story :

Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
by Maggie Gallagher

(..............Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: "OSU Librarian Slapped with 'Sexual Harassment' Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen." One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel "unsafe." The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance--you might call it harassment--than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. "Soft" coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people...............)

[Winter wind]

Quote by: apeman And are we represented by Bats? Earthworms? Who wears the black robes? Platypi? Oh! That's right, people. But instead of trusting the people as a whole based upon how they choose to vote or not vote, we should put our faith in the very few in the Judicial branch.

The judicial branch is indirectly voted in by the people. The judicial branch is ironically the most honest, as doesn't have to play politics to keep it's job. Law is what matters.

And the people do have power, just not directly, which is fine.
And i would like to point out you didn't directly counter any of my points, only saying that i was wrong.

Deny that the people are fickle, uninformed, and crappy at prioritizing.
Then deny that the civil rights movement met the exact same argument you are making now.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter Here's a lot of fuss over not much and some OSU professors who need to grow a set of balls too. ADF: OSU librarian slapped with “sexual harassment” charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty And a snippet from an article about this story : Banned in Boston The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. by Maggie Gallagher (..............Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: "OSU Librarian Slapped with 'Sexual Harassment' Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen." One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel "unsafe." The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped. In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance--you might call it harassment--than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. "Soft" coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people...............)

The most important portion of your post? This quote "...and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped." I can't stop "your guys" from filing suit in San Diego (a process that will hold the issue out there as worthy of serious consideration MUCH longer than the internal review of a bogus harrasment ever could) and you can't stop "my professors" from doing what they did. I would hold up the same challenge to you Kennedy did during that televised speech...want to trade places and see which you like better, suffering the slings and arrows thrown at a gay person or the slings and arrows thrown at a conservative christian? I'm guessing I already know your answer.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter Sonart, the issue here is that the California supreme court equated discrimination against gay marriage with discrimination against interracial marriage.

So do I, maxim.

Both race and homosexuality are physiological conditions over which humans have no control.. Homosexuality is, alas, a physiological condition that involves that touchiest of human morality issues... sexuality and reproduction. Other than that, it's no different than other physiological conditions that have been discriminated against at various points in history -- left handedness, dwarfism, albinism, etc.

Quote by: maximdewinter what is to prevent the California government from treating those who oppose same sex marriage as racists and to use government imposed anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws against those people for their religious beliefs.

And my point is that it IS equivalent to racism -- it's legalized discrimination against good, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying, military-serving American citizens for no other reason than a physiological condition they were born with, and one's religious beliefs doesn't make it right.

Tell me, maxim... should we make polygamy legal? After all, it's part of some religious beliefs. How about public stoning of adulterers? Many recently naturalized Americans believe in that, and it's certainly sanctioned in the Bible.

If you don't believe gays should marry, then don't marry one. Otherwise, your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, not to be confused with a secular, pluralistic democracy that constitutionally guarantees equality in law and opportunity for all American citizens.

Quote by: maximdewinter To find equivalence: How would San Diego treat firefighters who objected to marching in a Martin Luther King Jr. parade? Would they have grounds to fire them?

You tell me. What if they claimed that racial seperatism was their religious belief? Where did you imagine the symbol of the Burning Cross came from?

Quote by: maximdewinter Here's a lot of fuss over not much and some OSU professors who need to grow a set of balls too.

Yes, I'm sure that anecdotal examples of over-the-top reactions -- liberal and conservative -- abound. But these are free-speech issues, not equal opportunity or equal protection issues.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Isbskins I would hold up the same challenge to you Kennedy did during that televised speech...want to trade places and see which you like better, suffering the slings and arrows thrown at a gay person or the slings and arrows thrown at a conservative christian? I'm guessing I already know your answer.

Bingo.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sonart Bingo.

It's a two way street sonart. When people lump all Christians in one neat category...

but I see your point. Still, it isn't that simple...

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The most important portion of your post? This quote "...and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped." I can't stop "your guys" from filing suit in San Diego (a process that will hold the issue out there as worthy of serious consideration MUCH longer than the internal review of a bogus harrasment ever could) and you can't stop "my professors" from doing what they did. I would hold up the same challenge to you Kennedy did during that televised speech...want to trade places and see which you like better, suffering the slings and arrows thrown at a gay person or the slings and arrows thrown at a conservative christian? I'm guessing I already know your answer.

Your post is very presumptuous. You don't know me and I don't presume to know you. I've been here for what? two weeks and I'm supposed to know that you are gay? I don't even know who who you are. BTW, I'm maximdewinter...pleased to meet you.

And what is this "your guys" nonsense. How annoying that is. "My guys" are the founders of this country and the constitution that they wrote. For me, even though I am NOT THE LEAST BIT RELIGIOUS (as if I even have to declare that since it has absolutely no bearing on the merits) religious liberty is paramount. OK? Freedom of speech it right up there too. I suggest that in the future you ask instead of assume. Sometimes things aren't so obvious.

BTW, the fact that the lawsuit was dropped at OSU doesn't mean that the camel's nose isn't under the tent.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . So do I, maxim. Both race and homosexuality are physiological conditions over which humans have no control.. Homosexuality is, alas, a physiological condition that involves that touchiest of human morality issues... sexuality and reproduction. Other than that, it's no different than other physiological conditions that have been discriminated against at various points in history -- left handedness, dwarfism, albinism, etc. And my point is that it IS equivalent to racism -- it's legalized discrimination against good, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying, military-serving American citizens for no other reason than a physiological condition they were born with, and one's religious beliefs doesn't make it right. Tell me, maxim... should we make polygamy legal? After all, it's part of some religious beliefs. How about public stoning of adulterers? Many recently naturalized Americans believe in that, and it's certainly sanctioned in the Bible. If you don't believe gays should marry, then don't marry one. Otherwise, your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, not to be confused with a secular, pluralistic democracy that constitutionally guarantees equality in law and opportunity for all American citizens. You tell me. What if they claimed that racial seperatism was their religious belief? Where did you imagine the symbol of the Burning Cross came from? Yes, I'm sure that anecdotal examples of over-the-top reactions -- liberal and conservative -- abound. But these are free-speech issues, not equal opportunity or equal protection issues. .

At the beginning of this thread I stated that I have nothing against gays at all. I also am not religious whatsoever. I am pro-First Amendment. I respect that others have beliefs that I do not hold. I don't see that as a contradiction.

Should we make polygamy legal and permit public stonings? Give me a break...no. But should we let the religious people SAY they think God wants them to be polygamous and public rock throwers because that is a religious interpretation? Yes we should. That is the difference. As long as they don't break the law and DO IT they can believe WTF they want.

The first part of your post is more a definition of homosexuality and not about the problem of gay marriage. If you respect peoples' religion then IMO you should be sensitive to the fact that marriage is a sacrament. Are they not permitted that belief? And if they are not going to stop gay marriage isn't it still our "secular sacrament" (First Amendment Rights of religious belief and free speech) that a person can say, "My religion says that it is wrong." even if it is in the work place?

Try this on for size:
Two employees are sitting in the break room. There is a newspaper there about 4,000 dead soldiers in Iraq. One says to the other, " I believe in the 10 commandments. It is clearly wrong to kill. George Bush has killed thousands of innocent people and I believe he will go to hell." Is that grounds for firing? Fat chance.

Same room different headline about CA courts. "I believe in the Bible and the bible says that gay marriage is blasphemy. I think those people who do will go to Hell."

I want people to be able to utter both those sentences and not fear the religion police that will undoubtedly be coming in the next few years. I want to fight for people's right to use "offensive speech." That's what Amendment One is all about...unpopular, offensive speech.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter Your post is very presumptuous. You don't know me and I don't presume to know you. I've been here for what? two weeks and I'm supposed to know that you are gay? I don't even know who who you are. BTW, I'm maximdewinter...pleased to meet you. And what is this "your guys" nonsense. How annoying that is. "My guys" are the founders of this country and the constitution that they wrote. For me, even though I am NOT THE LEAST BIT RELIGIOUS (as if I even have to declare that since it has absolutely no bearing on the merits) religious liberty is paramount. OK? Freedom of speech it right up there too. I suggest that in the future you ask instead of assume. Sometimes things aren't so obvious. BTW, the fact that the lawsuit was dropped at OSU doesn't mean that the camel's nose isn't under the tent.

Did you happen to notice the quotes around "your guys" and "my guys". I assume you did, as you repeated them out of the quote box. That would be an indication that I have done this:

Quotation Marks for Words
Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way. (Quotation Marks)

Or did you assume I was too stupid to apply the proper rules of grammar in my post? I did not assume anything, I used "your guys" and "my guys" in the ironic sense when it came to my perspective and with reservations when it came to yours, as I do not know your mind.

What I do know is that you are equating social sanction (religious people feeling thwarted by lack of acceptance in the general populace for their "ideals") with legal sanction (gays being unable to marry because of those same "ideals"). They simply are not equatable. If someone was telling Baptist churches they had to marry gay couples, that would be something I would oppose because it would be an attack on the free practice of religion. But if private companies tell you you can not preach in the break room, be it over the morality of war or over gay marriage, that is their right. If they would not hire you, again, that would be wrong, but they have every right to keep gays from telling you, during work hours how wrong you are from their moral perspective and they have every right to keep you from doing the same. Learn to differentiate, and you will have no trouble from me.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter The first part of your post is more a definition of homosexuality and not about the problem of gay marriage. If you respect peoples' religion then IMO you should be sensitive to the fact that marriage is a sacrament. Are they not permitted that belief?

During the summer and fall of 2007, I got into an extended debate over this issue -- on another board. I had all the other liberals going berzerk because I was arguing that, since it was vitally important for Democrats to win the mid-term elections, and since anthropologically, marriage is -- in fact -- entirely about procreation, it might be better to not push the issue of gay marriage that year, lest we drive conservatives to the polls, and put it off for another time.

Well, it's another time. Yes, I can make an extended anthropological case that the tradition of marriage is historically about procreation, and therefore the conservative argument against gay marriage is based on a certain grain of truth.

But the bottom line is that the United States is not a theology... it is a secular, pluralistic, Constitutional republic that guarantees equal treatment of the law to all its citizens, and with this latest Court ruling, the time has come to make that clear.

Baptism, Communion, Penance and Death are sacraments too, and one would expect them to be available without discrimination. I doubt that gays take the Sacrament of Marriage any less seriously than anyone else, and a majority of Americans have come to accept the idea.

It's time for the devout to accept that the Civil Rights movement has seeped into every corner of America, that we can't eliminate one form of bigotry while accepting others.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll even get an openly declared Atheist elected to public office.

Quote by: maximdewinter Two employees are sitting in the break room. There is a newspaper there about 4,000 dead soldiers in Iraq. One says to the other, " I believe in the 10 commandments. It is clearly wrong to kill. George Bush has killed thousands of innocent people and I believe he will go to hell." Is that grounds for firing? Fat chance. Same room different headline about CA courts. "I believe in the Bible and the bible says that gay marriage is blasphemy. I think those people who do will go to Hell." I want people to be able to utter both those sentences and not fear the religion police that will undoubtedly be coming in the next few years. I want to fight for people's right to use "offensive speech." That's what Amendment One is all about...unpopular, offensive speech.

I have no problem with folks saying whatever pops into their heads. I just have a problem with acting on those ideas when it calls for denying people equal treatment for no good reason.

You don't see a difference with speech and action?

.

[maximdewinter]