California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 08:32 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]

The majority of Americans are Pro-Life. And most of the Pro-life laws that have passed by congressmen Federal and State, and by votes of the people since Roe vs Wade was forced upon the people, not a bigoted activist who deems a Child to be a nonperson sitting on a bench.

Edited August 5, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

This is not about equal rights. I would like one supposedly educated individual to state clearly that this is about expansion of rights.

Why is bigamy still against the law?

[Fidei Defensor]

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.

[God the Father]

hahaha so much for democracy. Since I'm lazy, can someone tell me what's being called "unconstitutional" about a state referendum? Isn't that the tenth amendment?

[StMichael]

That is addressed by the Constitution, directly.

The problem here is that the state amended their constitution under the state right to do so and it somehow was overseen by a Federal judge. So the Feds stepped in to force on the state something the state does not want.

Furthermore the usage of the 14th amendment is incorrect and this judge made an absolute leap to rule against the will of the people.

[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]

[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