Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2014, 04:38:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 639774
  • Total Topics: 48567
  • Online Today: 227
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Same sex marriage ban overturned  (Read 5545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,162
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Same sex marriage ban overturned
« on: August 04, 2010, 04:53:29 PM »
California's  prop 8 ruled unconstitutional.  Can't find news stories yet.  This is breaking news on CNN, currently being reported on.



Ray
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 05:44:33 PM by J.R.E. »
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,162
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2010, 05:21:02 PM »


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/proposition-8-overturned_n_670739.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

A copy of the ruling had not yet been publicly released.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,945
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline AaronbytheC

  • Member
  • Posts: 116
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2010, 05:57:39 PM »
Such great news!! 
My husband and I were fortunate enough to get married before prop 8  ;D 
I feel for our friends who have been denied this freedom.  This is a first step in setting this right!
04/2012 CD4 721 / 29% / VL UD
02/2011 UNDETECTABLE!
12/2010 CD4 587 / 24% / VL 210
11/2010 Started Atripla
10/2010 CD4 420 / 18% / VL 13,500
09/2010 CD4 541 / 17% / VL 10,500
08/2010 CD4 498 / 18% / VL Not Taken
07/2010 CD4 307 / 18% / VL 9,500
06/2010 Confirmed Poz
03/2010 Infected
06/2009 Neg

Offline madbrain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,208
  • No longer an active member
    • My personal site
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2010, 06:15:27 PM »
The ban is not overturned yet, unfortunately.
The ruling has been temporarily stayed until friday, at which point the judge will decide on a motion for a permanent stay pending appeal.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,722
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 06:16:35 PM »
Too cool.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,671
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 06:17:00 PM »
Just another skirmish in the war over equality. Nothing will be settled until the Supreme Court decides and either way, it will be ugly. How sad, how very sad.

Offline Merlin

  • Member
  • Posts: 642
  • As My WILL, So MOTE It Be !
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 11:20:57 PM »
All the x-tian haters spending so much tax payers monies just to decide on how 2 human beings can love. ???
The Supreme Court will now show its true colors and show who it "fears". Interesting.  ;)
I'll leave Hatred to those not strong enough to Love.

                            +++

Believe & The Power Of The Mind Transforms.
Make It Happen...

                            +++

I blame them for nothing.
I forgive them for everything.

---->> Mary J. Blige on dysfuctional parents

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2010, 12:26:14 AM »
This isn't necessarily a good thing...if the Supreme Court decides that Gay Marriage should not be legal then we lose the right to marry in ALL states currently granting marriage.  My hope is that level heads will prevail, but I know that there are at a minimum three justices who will write dissenting opinions, and it's my hope that it will only be those three and not say...five.

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2010, 01:16:06 AM »
This isn't necessarily a good thing...if the Supreme Court decides that Gay Marriage should not be legal then we lose the right to marry in ALL states currently granting marriage.  My hope is that level heads will prevail, but I know that there are at a minimum three justices who will write dissenting opinions, and it's my hope that it will only be those three and not say...five.

Is this necessarily true?  If the SC rules Prop 8 is constitutional, does that mean gays in Iowa, MA, etc will have their marriages voided?  I know many gay rights groups didn't want this case brought right now.  They had the same fears that the SC would rule against us.  After Bush V Gore, I lost all respect for the Supreme Court.  Up until then, I had always seen them as being above politics.  Maybe they never were, but I saw them that way.  I have been inspired that the lawyers for both Bush and Gore have come together on this issue.

I have gotten into huge fights with my partner's sister in law over this.  She is a religious nut.  She and her husband are both on their 2nd marriages.  It is absurd that my partner's brother can get married to who he loves because she has va-jay-jay and I have a penis.  This should not be put to voters.  I would bet if interracial marriage were put on ballots in many states, voters would take away that right. 

The judge said voters made their decision based out of fear of a dislike of same-sex couples.  He said same-sex couples were equal.  He went on to say marriage today is about equality and not male dominated as it use to be where women were seen as property and not equal.   

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2010, 07:42:17 AM »
This isn't necessarily a good thing...if the Supreme Court decides that Gay Marriage should not be legal then we lose the right to marry in ALL states currently granting marriage.  My hope is that level heads will prevail, but I know that there are at a minimum three justices who will write dissenting opinions, and it's my hope that it will only be those three and not say...five.

I think you are overreaching in your thoughts here.  The Supreme Court would be deciding if Prop 8 violates the US Constitutions guarantee of equal access.  It would not overturn any state's rights to marry, although it WOULD overturn any other state bans.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2010, 07:53:23 AM »
We'll have to wait and see. There is still a lot of loop holes. If California should win it doesn't mean that all states have to recognize it. The Supreme Court will have to define it better.

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2010, 08:34:51 AM »
I think you are overreaching in your thoughts here.  The Supreme Court would be deciding if Prop 8 violates the US Constitutions guarantee of equal access.  It would not overturn any state's rights to marry, although it WOULD overturn any other state bans.

Mike

Mike you could very well be right, I've been incredibly busy in the last couple of weeks so my information has all been secondhand.  It depends on if the Supreme Court is simply deciding the constitutionality of a ban, in which case they would say the ban is or is not legal, or if they are deciding the constitutionality of gay marriage as a civil right.  Honestly I feel like right now the ban is the better principle to be decided as they can't screw up the states that managed to pass gay marriage.

Offline chguy78

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2010, 09:25:42 AM »
Mike you could very well be right, I've been incredibly busy in the last couple of weeks so my information has all been secondhand.  It depends on if the Supreme Court is simply deciding the constitutionality of a ban, in which case they would say the ban is or is not legal, or if they are deciding the constitutionality of gay marriage as a civil right.  Honestly I feel like right now the ban is the better principle to be decided as they can't screw up the states that managed to pass gay marriage.

Mike's right.  The question before the court is whether Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  States (and Congress for that matter) can, in general, grant MORE than what is guaranteed by the Constitution.  The Constitution is the "floor" and not a "ceiling."
01/11: CD4=753 (36%), VL=Undetectable
07/10: CD4=531 (33%), VL=Undetectable
04/10: CD4=746 (33%), VL=Undetectable
01/10: CD4=566 (35%), VL=Undetectable
10/09: CD4=436 (31%), VL=405
07/09: CD4=631 (27%), VL=847
06/09: Started: Truvada, Reyataz, Norvir
05/09: CD4=426 (28%), VL=38,300
04/09: Positive; CD4=466 (28%), VL=39,700
10/08: Negative

Offline MarcoPoz

  • Member
  • Posts: 396
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2010, 12:36:57 PM »
14th amendment Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " 
 
I can't believe that any reading of this section of the amendment can support the right of a state to offer one set of rights to one group of individuals and deny the same right to others.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2010, 12:39:25 PM »
Will she be a block in same sex marriages? Elena Kagan: ''There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.'' She is Obama's pick for the Supreme Court if confirmed today.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,671
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2010, 12:49:05 PM »
This is an Editorial from the New York Times, August 4.

Marriage Is a Constitutional Right

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,802
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2010, 01:12:50 PM »
Thanks for posting this Joe . The one thing above all that has irritated me is the irrational reasons given for discrimination are not discussed enough , where is the outrage ??? .

I am also horrified when people say we better be careful or is this the right time to push this issue through the court system . I say enough is enough , lets take all the way to the supreme court .

If the supreme court wont do the right thing we should take it to the streets and raise holy hell and use our considerable dollars to hit where it hurts . I'm sick of listening to bigots being allowed to go on TV barely challenged and discuss my civil rights as if civil rights were only a novel idea for them alone . I do not like the term domestic partnerships , it smacks of separate but equal in my book and makes my skin crawl .

Offline Merlin

  • Member
  • Posts: 642
  • As My WILL, So MOTE It Be !
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2010, 01:29:29 PM »
The whole crux of discrimination since time immemorial stems from just one reality- Do they, the homophobes and X-tian right, regard GLBT as equal HUMAN BEINGS? Clearly from this fight, they DO NOT. If they do/did, then there is NO doubt that ALL must be accorded the same constitutional rights.  ::)

Judge Walker is an enlightened and highly impartial human being. I pray God bless and protect him from adversaries and danger. And we all know how far hatred will go to inflict suffering on others not within their dragnet.  >:(
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 01:40:55 PM by Merlin »
I'll leave Hatred to those not strong enough to Love.

                            +++

Believe & The Power Of The Mind Transforms.
Make It Happen...

                            +++

I blame them for nothing.
I forgive them for everything.

---->> Mary J. Blige on dysfuctional parents

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2010, 01:33:28 PM »
Rod, you know as well as I do that Kagan (if confirmed) would strike down any ban on same sex marriage.

I'm really beginning to like this judge Walker.  That was a fantastic opinion.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2010, 02:45:17 PM »
Rod, you know as well as I do that Kagan (if confirmed) would strike down any ban on same sex marriage.

I'm really beginning to like this judge Walker.  That was a fantastic opinion.
We'll have to wait and see. I'm not holding my breath since she has never tried a case in any court and this will be one of her first judgements. All we have on her is what she has previously stated. They could all vote to leave it up to each state. We have 8 more justices that have to concur with Walker or at least a majority of them would have to concur. Time will tell.

Sonia Sotomayor
Samuel Alito
John G. Roberts
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Clarence Thomas
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2010, 03:21:20 PM »
I think you are all chasing your tails.  The question before the court is not whether the US Constitution grants same-sex marriage rights.  I'd say that it does not -- but neither does it guarantee opposite sex marriage rights.  Far as I can tell the US Constitution says diddly about marriage.

The question before the courts is whether a state can ban same-sex marriage, while allowing opposite sex marriage -- hence the focus on the 14th amendment.

Now, it's not out of the question that the US Supreme court could go beyond the original question and comment on marriage in general -- but the question it will be asked to answer is about banning one group of people while allowing others.  Seems clearcut in my view -- but I won't be one of the nine deciding......

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline AlanBama

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,626
  • Alabama: the 'other' 3rd World Country!
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2010, 03:27:16 PM »
I saw something on the news about some Congressman trying to rally support for overturning the 14th amendment, not about the gay marriage issue, but because of the "anyone born in US is a citizen".....

Some days, I am so NOT proud to be an American

 :(
"Remember my sentimental friend that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." - The Wizard of Oz

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,722
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2010, 04:04:06 PM »
I was glad to read the decision that the ban is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional, and also to hear Rachel Maddow reinforce that civil rights are not subject to popular vote. 
The Supreme Court case will certainly be important for the future of the US.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2010, 04:08:38 PM »
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline madbrain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,208
  • No longer an active member
    • My personal site
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2010, 06:34:54 PM »
This isn't necessarily a good thing...if the Supreme Court decides that Gay Marriage should not be legal then we lose the right to marry in ALL states currently granting marriage.

Uh ?
The question about prop 8 is whether the state of California is allowed to ban same-sex marriage in its state constitution.

Even if the USSC finds that is the case, that wouldn't require any other state to ban same-sex marriage. It would just mean that this ban would stand, and all the other existing state bans would likely stand as well .


Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2010, 08:52:00 PM »
Uh ?
The question about prop 8 is whether the state of California is allowed to ban same-sex marriage in its state constitution.

Even if the USSC finds that is the case, that wouldn't require any other state to ban same-sex marriage. It would just mean that this ban would stand, and all the other existing state bans would likely stand as well .



Read through the rest of the conversation please

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2010, 09:33:56 PM »
Uh ?
The question about prop 8 is whether the state of California is allowed to ban same-sex marriage in its state constitution.

Even if the USSC finds that is the case, that wouldn't require any other state to ban same-sex marriage. It would just mean that this ban would stand, and all the other existing state bans would likely stand as well .



Wait, I thought this brou ha ha revolved around teh 14th Amendment to the US Constitution/Bill Named Rights or something.

MtD

Online leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2010, 09:44:48 PM »
14th Amendment to the US Constitution
that's the mess with illegal immigrants and so-called "anchor babies" passed in 1868 (overturning the Dred Scott decision)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

same-sex marriage (and the prop 8 mess) is under the purview of DOMA (defense of marriage act) passed in 1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline bmancanfly

  • Member
  • Posts: 581
  • Medicare For All !
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2010, 10:01:49 PM »
I think you are all chasing your tails.  The question before the court is not whether the US Constitution grants same-sex marriage rights.  I'd say that it does not -- but neither does it guarantee opposite sex marriage rights.  Far as I can tell the US Constitution says diddly about marriage.

The question before the courts is whether a state can ban same-sex marriage, while allowing opposite sex marriage -- hence the focus on the 14th amendment.

Now, it's not out of the question that the US Supreme court could go beyond the original question and comment on marriage in general -- but the question it will be asked to answer is about banning one group of people while allowing others.  Seems clearcut in my view -- but I won't be one of the nine deciding......

Mike

I think you're mistaken.

If the SC upholds Judge Walkers decision than all gay marriage bans in all 50 states will be overturned on 14th amendment grounds.   However, if the SC overturns Judge Walker's decision then the current status quo will remain.

Also, while it's true that marriage in not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the SC has ruled,  repeatedly, that marriage is a constitutional right. 
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

 Bertrand Russell

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2010, 10:43:40 PM »
I think you're mistaken.

If the SC upholds Judge Walkers decision than all gay marriage bans in all 50 states will be overturned on 14th amendment grounds.   However, if the SC overturns Judge Walker's decision then the current status quo will remain.

Also, while it's true that marriage in not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the SC has ruled,  repeatedly, that marriage is a constitutional right. 

Where am I mistaken?

Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2010, 10:51:08 PM »
that's the mess with illegal immigrants and so-called "anchor babies" passed in 1868 (overturning the Dred Scott decision)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

same-sex marriage (and the prop 8 mess) is under the purview of DOMA (defense of marriage act) passed in 1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

First of all -- what's the "mess" associated with treating people equal and stating that if you are born here you are a citizen? and why was overturning Dred Scot bad (i'm reading that implication in your post -- perhaps I'm wrong).

Second, the prop 8 mess currently being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with DOMA.  It's about whether California's ban of same sex marriage violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, you know the part that talks about Equal protection and due process.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Online leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2010, 11:25:29 PM »
...(i'm reading that implication in your post -- perhaps I'm wrong).

Second, the prop 8 mess currently being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with DOMA....
yes, you're reading the wrong implications into my post.

the "mess" is about idiots like my SC senator Mr graham thinking that revoking the 14th amendment to get rid of "anchor babies" is somehow a solution to what some republicans think of as the immigration problem. the 14th amendment overturned the dred scott ruling so that ex-slaves and their descendents were actually citizens

just in case you're thinking I'm a bigot, I think overturning the DS decision was a good thing ;) I also think changing the constitution to change the 14th amendment to disallow citizenship to people born here to non-citizens is not a good thing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9270-LA-Border-and-Immigration-Examiner~y2010m8d5-Anchor-babies-fanning-the-flames-of-immigration-debate
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham who in the past has expressed support for immigration overhaul, has also voiced intentions to introduce a constitutional amendment seeking to deny citizenship rights to the so called “anchor babies,” while Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Arizona’s senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, asked this week for congressional hearings on the topic.

Under the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship was set in 1898 when a U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that “a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent […] becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”


I find it amazing that these people that keep claiming that their country "has been taken away", and that we need to "get back to" the constitution, keep wanting to change that very constitution. weird ::)

I didn't realize that Prop 8 dealt with the 14th amendment (ah, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Damn, that amendment sure does get around. ROFL) along with DOMA. Of course Prop 8 is connected to DOMA -that's the federal "defense of marriage" law that declares it has to be a m/f marriage. Prop 8 is the California equivalent to DOMA

http://against8.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-doma.html
In simplest terms it is a federal equivalent to California's notorious Proposition 8. In the same way Prop 8 discriminates against Gay Marriage in California, DOMA does the same on a national scale.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/11/06/doma
With their newly minted control over the White House and Congress, Democrats can easily provide a vital (if not complete) antidote to Proposition 8:  repeal of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (.pdf).  Enacted in 1996, DOMA's principal effects are two-fold:  (1) it explicitly prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples [Section 3]; and (2) it authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states [Section 2].
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Online leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2010, 11:29:16 PM »
Wait, I thought this brou ha ha revolved around teh 14th Amendment to the US Constitution/Bill Named Rights or something.

MtD
sorry then Matty. ;)
I guess the babies of non-US citizens and gay marriages do have the 14th amendment in common
American politics are so confusing sometimes. ::) You'd think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wouldn't be that hard to understand - or adjudicate  ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2010, 02:34:11 AM »
Rod, you know as well as I do that Kagan (if confirmed) would strike down any ban on same sex marriage.

I'm really beginning to like this judge Walker.  That was a fantastic opinion.

It was a great decision.  For anyone who wants to read to full 138 page decision, you can read it below.  I noticed republicans are very quite about this ruling.  I was expecting news conferences saying it was another example of judges legislating from the bench.  I haven't seen that from members of Congress or republicans expected to run for prez.  Does this mean they have decided the gay issue isn't something they should run on anymore?  Or, just give them more time?  Is it that during times of recession, voters don't want to hear about things like gay marriage?  The gay marriage wedge issue only works when times are good? 

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/prop-8-defeat-read-the-decision/19581399

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2010, 11:23:25 AM »
yes, you're reading the wrong implications into my post.


I didn't realize that Prop 8 dealt with the 14th amendment (ah, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Damn, that amendment sure does get around. ROFL) along with DOMA. Of course Prop 8 is connected to DOMA -that's the federal "defense of marriage" law that declares it has to be a m/f marriage. Prop 8 is the California equivalent to DOMA

I'm glad I misread.  ;)

However, you are wrong about the current Prop 8 case being connected to DOMA, as far as I'm seen there is no mention of DOMA in this case.  This is simply about the constitutionality of the ban -- DOMA is not part of the constitution.  Splitting hairs?  perhaps...  but I think it's an important split.  Nullifying DOMA does nothing to set a national precendent it simply stops that one law -- states could still do as they wished, whereas finding the ban in violation of the 14th amendment guarantees that all other state bans do so also.

I won't be able to add any more to this, as I'm leaving for a week in Paris and do not intend to be spending any time on the internet.  Enjoy the debate folks and I'll catch up when I return..........

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Online leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2010, 11:29:28 AM »
as I'm leaving for a week in Paris
Bon Voyage!
(woohoo! A chance to use my high school French lessons. ROFL)
have a safe and wonderful trip ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,111
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2010, 02:58:58 PM »
Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2010, 11:17:09 PM »

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2010, 02:47:47 AM »
I just saw something on the news where the judge is gay himself.  Did I hear that right?

And, I just had to show this pic of the Canadian Supreme Court and what they wear.  I thought I was seeing a Christmas photo, but I guess this is actually what they wear.  I know it is off topic.


Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2010, 03:28:02 AM »
I just saw something on the news where the judge is gay himself.  Did I hear that right?

And, I just had to show this pic of the Canadian Supreme Court and what they wear.  I thought I was seeing a Christmas photo, but I guess this is actually what they wear.  I know it is off topic.



Such robing is traditional in Commonwealth courts. Crimson robing with ermine trim. At least the Canucks eschew the horsehair wigs.

MtD

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,162
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2010, 08:42:16 AM »
Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE


Ted Olsen -10   Chris Wallace --0   Good interview !



Ray
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline randym431

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,125
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2010, 09:29:09 AM »
This isn't necessarily a good thing...if the Supreme Court decides that Gay Marriage should not be legal then we lose the right to marry in ALL states currently granting marriage.  My hope is that level heads will prevail, but I know that there are at a minimum three justices who will write dissenting opinions, and it's my hope that it will only be those three and not say...five.

I think its well worth the risk, or crap shoot, in the US supreme court.
Marriage via state law may give gay people that warm cozy feeling inside,
but its federal law that matters when all is said and done.
I am married gay legal in iOwa, but since then, it's messed me up legally more than not.
I.e. you can do your state taxes legally as married, but then the federal does not allow-like it.
So you can instead do your fed taxes single, but the state doesn’t like that.
Things are not setup to file single on one and married on the other.
Try filing using some online program, like taxactonline.com, and things
really get crazy. Taxact simply does not make accommodations for gay marriage.

And try to buy a house together going FHA (Federal Housing Admin)… ish!!!!
Nightmare!
Then consider employment. My partners sister passed away a while back.
Technically she is now my sister-in-law. Company rules say that I get 3-days
bereavement leave with pay. The company said no! I took it to the iOwa labor board,
the labor board basically said iOwa law doesn’t matter. The company can do whatever they want.
They do not have to grant bereavement if they do not want to.

So while I was excited to see same sex marriage in iOwa, its pretty much a personal warm cozy feeling rather than a law with teeth. Not until we get this on a federal level will we gain the due justice we deserve and seek. And consider states with same sex marriage, you have the constant threats from voters and groups like NOM.

Yeah.. we do need federal Law. It’s worth the gamble. And I for one believe we will win
in the US supreme court simply because when this issue goes before courts, we always win. Even the iOwa state supreme court, with many right wing republicans sitting, ruled unanimous in favor of same sex marriage. Law is law! And when the justices are true to their convictions, they rule in favor.

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2010, 12:27:31 AM »
Jon Stewart's take on the Prop 8 decision including comments by Sarah Palin and CNN sending a reporter to a gay bar for reaction and more funny commentary.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/californigaytion

Offline Merlin

  • Member
  • Posts: 642
  • As My WILL, So MOTE It Be !
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2010, 02:00:53 AM »
Jon Stewart's take on the Prop 8 decision including comments by Sarah Palin and CNN sending a reporter to a gay bar for reaction and more funny commentary.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/californigaytion

Always trust Jon Stewart to balance the scales with common sense, truth and reality.  :-*
I'll leave Hatred to those not strong enough to Love.

                            +++

Believe & The Power Of The Mind Transforms.
Make It Happen...

                            +++

I blame them for nothing.
I forgive them for everything.

---->> Mary J. Blige on dysfuctional parents

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2010, 02:23:52 AM »
Always trust Jon Stewart to balance the scales with common sense, truth and reality.  :-*

Very true.  If only the "real" news media had as much sense.  But I forgot The Colbert Report's take on the gay marriage decision.  Steven does very funny and smart work in his persona as an ultra-conservative.  Stephen talks about "Inches" magazine and does a funny bit about how to ruin gay marriage by a straight person tricking a gay guy into marrying him after being together 6 years and having tons of sex and then at the alter saying NO.  Funny stuff! 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2010, 03:14:46 AM »
JUDGE WALKER TO RULE THURSDAY ON STAY IN PROP 8 CASE

The following link gives a great summary of all the legal terms and consequences of Walker's previous decision and the one expected Thursday the 12th between Noon and 3pm EDT.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/11/breaking-judge-walker-to-rule-thursday-on-stay-in-prop-8-case/

Offline Merlin

  • Member
  • Posts: 642
  • As My WILL, So MOTE It Be !
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2010, 04:34:15 AM »
Very true.  If only the "real" news media had as much sense.  But I forgot The Colbert Report's take on the gay marriage decision.  Steven does very funny and smart work in his persona as an ultra-conservative.  Stephen talks about "Inches" magazine and does a funny bit about how to ruin gay marriage by a straight person tricking a gay guy into marrying him after being together 6 years and having tons of sex and then at the alter saying NO.  Funny stuff! 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages

Thanks for the Colbert Report Vid upload. Classic ! :D
I'll leave Hatred to those not strong enough to Love.

                            +++

Believe & The Power Of The Mind Transforms.
Make It Happen...

                            +++

I blame them for nothing.
I forgive them for everything.

---->> Mary J. Blige on dysfuctional parents

Offline Grasshopper

  • Member
  • Posts: 452
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2010, 04:48:56 AM »
Seems like even Mexico has a lead on the USA :

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=11369333

"All Mexican States Must Recognize Gay Marriages
Mexico's Supreme Court rules nationwide recognition for Mexico City's same-sex marriages"

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Same sex marriage ban overturned
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2010, 05:20:54 PM »
Just saw a CNN poll which for the first time of any reputable poll shows a majority now believe gays should have the right to marry--52% to 46%.  You have to remember there is always that crazy 25-30% who love Bush and Sarah and packing heat to pre-schools.  We will never win them over. 

Also just saw a Gallop poll from 1967 on interracial marriage when 16 states had bans.  Here is the poll:

Do you approve of interracial marriage?

Approve:  20%

Disapprove:  73%

The court didn't listen to public opinion then thankfully and hopefully they won't this time.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.