-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Same Sex Marriage ban
- Thread starter CHUM
- Start date
theAmazingKickstand
New member
Other than $ rules what else goes into effect once you get married legaly? Whats the pre-req?
Idontdotrix
let sleeping bitches lie
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Moto(s)
- Ninja zx9r "the Bimbo"
- Name
- Dannielle
how about the right to make medical decisions for your partner?
why do you want people to marry their pets
I realize you're kidding but if they proved somehow that animals consented to and enjoyed sex with humans I wouldn't care what people did.
As of now 2 (or more) consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want.
MysterYvil
Mr. Bad Example
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Location
- Erehwon (Shangri-La)
- Moto(s)
- Alas, they are all in the past
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2858947
As someone who last year was admitted to an ICU but was pretty insensible at the time, that is the bit that really concerns me!
rritterson
wish I was the bike
A few words about the ruling:
The district court ruling was very broad, and, if upheld, would have applied to all 50 states because of it's constitutional implications. The circuit court rejected most of that broadness and instead crafted a ruling that would only apply to CA, even if SCOTUS upheld it. In essence, the majority ruling of the 3-panel appeal said "California already gives gays/lesbians every right except the use of the ceremonial title of married. Thus, the law makes no sense and is only there out of spite, so it violates equal protection". In other places where gays/lesbians have no rights as couples, then, their bans on same-sex marriages would not fall under the same argument as this ruling. Note that SCOTUS can choose to do nothing, can review and uphold the same ruling, review and create a new ruling that still overturns prop 8, or review and reverse the circuit court and keep prop 8 as law. So this is far from over.
At least one analyst (Jeff Toobin) things SCOTUS may choose to not hear the case because of the limited scope of the ruling, choosing instead to bide time and wait until they are asked to review something of national scope instead.
The dissenting opinion ruled that gays and lesbians are not a protected class worthy of special consideration like minority races, and, furthermore, the federal courts must be very careful not to intervene over states in issues of marriage. Because the California supreme court already ruled Prop 8 constitutional, he argued that their arguments were sound, federal intervention was not necessary because gays/lesbians aren't protected, and so chose to do nothing.
Of the 3 judges, the liberal and moderate upheld the lower court ruling against prop 8, while the conservative judge voted to overturn the decision. This is going to lead to lots of 'liberal activist judges of the 9th circuit court' talking points today.
Finally, I would say that if the original ruling by the district court were upheld in it's entirety, and the Supreme court either agreed or refused to hear, we'd be looking at a legalization of polygamy pretty much immediately because the same arguments would apply-- that the state can't get in the way of consenting adults. With this narrower ruling, that is not an issue because second and third wives don't have any rights in the state right now.
The district court ruling was very broad, and, if upheld, would have applied to all 50 states because of it's constitutional implications. The circuit court rejected most of that broadness and instead crafted a ruling that would only apply to CA, even if SCOTUS upheld it. In essence, the majority ruling of the 3-panel appeal said "California already gives gays/lesbians every right except the use of the ceremonial title of married. Thus, the law makes no sense and is only there out of spite, so it violates equal protection". In other places where gays/lesbians have no rights as couples, then, their bans on same-sex marriages would not fall under the same argument as this ruling. Note that SCOTUS can choose to do nothing, can review and uphold the same ruling, review and create a new ruling that still overturns prop 8, or review and reverse the circuit court and keep prop 8 as law. So this is far from over.
At least one analyst (Jeff Toobin) things SCOTUS may choose to not hear the case because of the limited scope of the ruling, choosing instead to bide time and wait until they are asked to review something of national scope instead.
The dissenting opinion ruled that gays and lesbians are not a protected class worthy of special consideration like minority races, and, furthermore, the federal courts must be very careful not to intervene over states in issues of marriage. Because the California supreme court already ruled Prop 8 constitutional, he argued that their arguments were sound, federal intervention was not necessary because gays/lesbians aren't protected, and so chose to do nothing.
Of the 3 judges, the liberal and moderate upheld the lower court ruling against prop 8, while the conservative judge voted to overturn the decision. This is going to lead to lots of 'liberal activist judges of the 9th circuit court' talking points today.
Finally, I would say that if the original ruling by the district court were upheld in it's entirety, and the Supreme court either agreed or refused to hear, we'd be looking at a legalization of polygamy pretty much immediately because the same arguments would apply-- that the state can't get in the way of consenting adults. With this narrower ruling, that is not an issue because second and third wives don't have any rights in the state right now.
Last edited:
Idontdotrix
let sleeping bitches lie
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Moto(s)
- Ninja zx9r "the Bimbo"
- Name
- Dannielle
the same argument doesn't apply bc it's not about any choice made between consenting adults, it's about the two individuals, and maintaining that any two individuals, regardless of gender, race,creed, or sexual orientation are permitted the same right as any other.
Its the 9th circuit decision, no surprise.
It was always the real decision would be made by the US Supreme Court.
A case with only the Presumption of proof doesn't sound like a strong case.
No Gay marriage licensing until after US Supreme decision. Celebrate then
arty
It was always the real decision would be made by the US Supreme Court.
A case with only the Presumption of proof doesn't sound like a strong case.
No Gay marriage licensing until after US Supreme decision. Celebrate then
arty
Joebar4000
New member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2002
- Location
- Los Gatos hills
- Moto(s)
- Anything I can get my hands on for now
- Name
- Ian
I for one, am really looking forward to watching "Gay Divorce Court" 
Oh, the DRAMA!!!!!!
Oh, the DRAMA!!!!!!
Civil Union Rights
In January 2005, California passed Assembly Bill 205 which extended many rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership rights in this state now include being able to adopt and inherit, making medical decisions on the partner's behalf, offering health care coverage to partners of employees at state and local businesses, using paid time off for the domestic partner and holding power of attorney and estate executor.
Read more: California Civil Union Rights Vs. Marriage | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7370338_california-union-rights-vs_-marriage.html#ixzz1ljMXq3Wd
Morphine
Team Clueless, Captain
I for one, am really looking forward to watching "Gay Divorce Court"
Oh, the DRAMA!!!!!!
cynner
Fangirl
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Location
- the Sunset
- Moto(s)
- Das Krautzenmoto, Hobo Ebike, (sold) Il Violetta
- Name
- Cindy
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2816023
Gixxergirl1000
AFM #731
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Location
- Stockton
- Moto(s)
- GSXR-1000; GSX-R 450 Triple race bike "Timmay"; GS 500 race bike "The Murderbike"
- Name
- Connie
+ eleventy billion!!!1!!
This. And it pisses me off no end... combining narrow-minded religious bigotry with politics- my two most-loathed things...
cynner
Fangirl
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Location
- the Sunset
- Moto(s)
- Das Krautzenmoto, Hobo Ebike, (sold) Il Violetta
- Name
- Cindy
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2816023
MysterYvil
Mr. Bad Example
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Location
- Erehwon (Shangri-La)
- Moto(s)
- Alas, they are all in the past
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2858947
Not even close to the equal of "marriage:"
"In California, married couples can do the following but domestic partners cannot: file joint federal taxes, transfer assets to the other person without tax penalty and provide health insurance to the spouse while employed at a company outside California. Domestic partners cannot receive social security and veteran's benefits after the other person has died and immigrants cannot become U.S. citizens after partnership."
Not to mention that it limits domestic partnership to two people...
Which, again, doesn't work for my family. Been there, done that; only sheer luck put my "lawfully wedded" wife at my side at the time, I'd have been fucked otherwise.
Last edited:
eWok13
New member
Shotline
Well-known member
One thing I don't understand is that there is a federal law (can't recall exactly what it is) that makes a marriage performed in one state valid in all other states. Therefore, if a same sex couple gets married in a state that allows it, shouldn't the law make that marriage valid in all states?
Caddywumpus
4N631
you would think, but our executives and legislature at the time took a shit on the constitution and passed this:
Damn True
New member
If folks are worried about the sanctity of marriage they should direct their ire at those who break their vows not those who seek to make them.
True - Federal laws haven't caught up is these legal matters. From what I heard from celebrity same sex partners. Through simple legal papers - file joint federal taxes, transfer assets to the other person without tax penalty.
That is Federal not State problem. Probably won't change if prop 8 is deemed unconstitutional. State with Same Sex marriage aren't recognized by feds.
Is this second point extra to same sex marriage ? A trio-marriage that is common (2-same sex and one opposite). Loaded question is this the next marriage arrangement to make amends ?
If it were up to me - Domestic Partners is all the State or any Government to license. They shouldn't be in a institution of marriage that is religious practice. On the grounds of separation of church and state.
