My comment is that if two people want to get married they should be able to, it should not be a law that just because some people to approve of this i think its none of their business! If others can get married I believe that in all fairness anyone should be able to marry. its because some people are prejudice and I think these people are full of crap and need to get a life and leave others alone, I mean would these same people let others tell them who they can be with? i think not!!
What I really hate about lawmakers discussing gay marriage to enact as a law, is that they always bring religion in to it. The Constitution SHOULD bar out the involvement of religion towards any law discussion.
@TheDementedDemon exactly. I was taught that there was meant to be a separation of church and state because the religious people could say "because god said so" and get whateverthefuck they want
I definately support gay marriage, so there's my bias while watching this, but I admire this lawyer nonetheless. A tough argument to make, but I think he made it well.
If marriage is only about procreation then birth control needs to be outlawed in any state that uses that justification immediately and it needs to be mandated that married heterosexual couples have children and any couple that doesn't have children should lose their marriage and infertile or older couples shouldn't get a marriage license either, if marriage is all about procreation. It's so hypocritical.
There has been state efforts in the past but a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples is constitutionally unenforceable because heterosexual (man/woman) marriage is a fundamental right. Also, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many situations like it, this would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
Thus, its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
By contrast, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like it. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter.
@kenballer00 I completely understand that it would be unconstitutional to deny infertile couples the right to marry, that was the point I was trying to make. Just like it's obnoxious and unconstitutional to continue to deprive Homosexual couples the right to marry. Who a person marries should not be up to anyone especially an ignorant majority.
I again ask you why are gays only denied marriage because they can't reproduce and heterosexual infertile and older couples can? It seems hypocritical.
Those aren't the only reasons. The main reason why the state allows the infertile but doesn't with same sex couples ultimately deals with marriage which is separate from procreation because marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for the social regulation of procreation. In other words, The state is there to promote responsible procreation.
if the state allowed a man and a woman who can't procreate to get a marriage license, the state would not have to change the existing marriage laws that promote traditional marriage. However, if the state started to give marriage licenses to same sex couples, this would force the state to change all the existing marriage laws that define and promote marriage between a man and a woman to a gender neutral understanding of marriage where the government would feature both relationships together.
@kenballer00 "his would force the state to change all the existing marriage laws that define and promote marriage between a man and a woman to a gender neutral understanding of marriage where the government would feature both relationships together."
I as a woman in a heterosexual marriage don't get why that's such a problem. My love and marriage with my husband is equal to that of a gay couple that's been committed to each other for longer. Again, I still don't get it.
The promotion of the term marriage is NOT there to promote what is considered responsible but its specifically there to socially construct and encourage heterosexuals to be responsible with their natural urges to procreate. Heterosexuality or opposite sex couples pose a threat to society. This is why the state steps in to regulate their action in order for them to not harm society since their sexual acts can procreate accidentally through wild passion.
Marriage socially and legally regulates what naturally comes about from that union to connect, sustain, and keep that natural unit together so it won't fall apart.
Same sex couples do not have to worry about procreating accidentally or at a very young age which would lead to more overpopulation. Therefore, parentage is always planned and chosen and always at a point where they are or would be able to support a family on their own.
if same sex couples are labeled as exactly the same as opposite sex couples, a number of things would no longer be encouraged. Marriage would no longer be about responsible procreation making less incentive for heterosexuals to choose marriage first over cohabitation to procreate and less resistant to procreate responsibly because marriage is about acting on adult desires and not about children. Then, it would no longer be about natural parenthood and connecting mothers and fathers to children.
This means pontentially less incentive for the mother to connect her child to (biological) father or for the father to feel responsible because biological fathers are irrelevant and any two people can raise kids. It could be mom and boyfriend, mom and grandma etc.
In other words, Instead of marriage being a necessity to raise children in the best situation it becomes a matter of choice. This also includes connecting children to their biological fathers. Fathers are a matter of choice.
@kenballer00 So it's really just about procreation, okay then back to my question, after all of your comments about marriage being exclusively for heterosexuals to raise kids responsibly and to procreate period why is contraception, abortion, or marriage for any infertile couple like me and my husband or for same sex couples? If it's just about procreation?
The Ends: What the state does to combat this is raise and train each generation from birth and on to make sure they make better and planned choices to focus their natural urges to procreate in a productive manner and create better families as a result.
@kenballer00 Why is abortion legal within married couples if marriage is just about binding a man and woman together to express their desires and have kids?
Are you saying that people would live together more outside of married if marriage was no longer "special" because it would no longer be for a man and women. Then how do you explain the divorce rate being so high in states that don't have same sex marriage? How can you explain the cohabitation rate being up in states that don't have legal same sex marriage.
You can't put the problems with married couples now on same sex couples. Heterosexuals ruin the state of marriage on their own.
However, cohabitation not only increases the likely of accidental pregnancies but there is some evidence of a causal relationship between to cohabitation and divorce. In addition, There is evidence of causation between parental separation and poor child outcomes. Child abuse is also very frequent within cohabition couples particularly with the mother and her boyfriend.
@kenballer00 "This means pontentially less incentive for the mother to connect her child to (biological) father or for the father to feel responsible because biological fathers are irrelevant and any two people can raise kids."
What if the child was conceived "irresponsibly" and the father leaves the mom? What if the father is a substance abuser or a criminal and the mother didn't know? What do those situations have to do with same sex couples getting married since it's happening now?
I don't think you quite understand the "responsible procreation" theory the state argues and practices yet. I agree that the state does not require us to procreate once licenses are given. Marriage and procreation are not one in the same thing because we don't need outside encouragement for something that is already naturally encouraged nor do we need more people.
Studies show over 50% of pregnancies are unintended with most of them happening in cohahabitation.
@kenballer00 'Studies show over 50% of pregnancies are unintended with most of them happening in cohahabitation."
Okay but I live in a state that doesn't have same sex marriage and what it does have is a high cohabitation rate, high abortion rate, high child abuse rate, high divorce rate, high teen pregnancy and unintended pregnancy rate? So if same sex marriage is not legal then what's the real cause of all those problems. Let's stop making same sex couples the scape goat.
Therefore, Since same sex couples cannot procreate irresponsibly, that would be an important governmental distinction between the two relationships that justify and require a different name like civil unions to continue advancing the state's interest to publicly encourage responsible procreation in was has been shown to be a better situation than cohabitation to each generation for heterosexuals to choose FIRST while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt with civil unions.
@kenballer00 I still don't get it, not because I'm not uneducated, ignorant or anything else, but that it just doesn't seem right to say that these problems, People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly, would get worse because same sex couples could be married.
The marriage laws are mainly about it influencing and training the next generation where their minds are vulnerable. Its about channeling the traditional understanding of marriage particularly within the schools. Then, the state reinforces the traditional idea of marriage in other ways ,with the help of society, inside and outside of what schools promote and advertise.
The Means: The culturally understood term marriage is used as a means to do this because studies show that people who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Therefore, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation if they choose to get married according to other studies.
@kenballer00, Okay so it's all due to gay people wanting to get married. People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly when gays weren't even allowed to be married?
Again it seems like homosexuals are a scape goat and that nobody's addressing the real issue.
there are many things that would change on legal grounds from redefining marriage. One way is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money and the media like newspaper wedding annoucements. The other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specfic terms. lastly, businesses are changed to fit the standards of the state like adoption agencies. With civil unions or infertile couples, child abusers etc, none of this would be the case.
This whole process would take at least 20-25 years or 10-15 MORE yrs. when it comes to the Netherlands to see whether the next generation would potentially be more likely to grow up more inclined to either choose cohabitation first before they get married if marriage is redefined legally because they are infused with a non-traditional view of marriage or choose marriage as the first option if the traditional definition of marriage is preserved and fixed.
@kenballer00 Okay so how do conservatives who voted against Prop 8 plan to "fix" the following problems:People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly.
Just tell me how these problems are to be fixed other than denying same sex marriage since these are current problems in states with Traditional marriage.
We have already made efforts ,before gay marriage was even an issue, to cut down on divorce and continue to do so through the covenant marriage movement which use to be led by Steve Nock. Couples are forced to go through a lot of obstacles before they get married with marriage counseling and when they attempt to get a divorce in some states in order to filter out the Britney Spears of the world. This was during the many celebrity divorces that happened through 2001-03.
In addition, the marriage movement itself or the Promotion of traditional marriage is attempting to fight divorce as well. As I explained before, studies show that people who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Therefore, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation according to other studies.
However, even if this was not the case, two wrongs should not make a right anyways.
@kenballer00 Okay but how does creating barriers to being able to have a heterosexual marriage fix the following problems: child abuse within a married heterosexual couple, domestic abuse, kids living without their father because the mom and and were denied a marriage license because they didn't pass counseling, the dad not wanting to be in the picture, the mom not wanting the dad to be in the picture, cohabitation because of denial of a marriage license, getting pregnant outside of marriage?
@kenballer00 "Couples are forced to go through a lot of obstacles before they get married with marriage counseling and when they attempt to get a divorce in some states in order to filter out the Britney Spears of the world."
If anything, this encourages cohabitation instead of encouraging traditional marriage. My heterosexual parents are divorced and my mom will not marry again, because it's too hard to get divorced even though she's been with the man for 15 years, so states that make it
The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this passion by limiting as many adult choices that have the potential to hurt family and kids.The definition of marriage is one way the law of marriage helps further this civic purpose: our laws give a baseline definition of who is or is not married, providing a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, or even adultery, can be understood.
Marriage encourages those who are responsible for creating children, both fathers and mothers, to jointly assume responsibility for raising the child -- mitigating the gendered inequality which frequently occurs when single mothers bear the burdens of parenting alone. Given the high number of men who do not care for the children created by acts of sexual passion, encouraging natural parents to feel responsible for their children is also an important good.
@kenballer00 Okay that's great but you didn't really answer my question at all? You just provided the stock answer that I call Conservative Talking Points. I don't get what any of this has to do with making homosexuality an acceptable thing or allowing gays to marry. It just seems like you're making stuff up just to deny up to 10% the right to marry the person of their choice and saying that the already rampant problems with "traditional" marriage would get worse? How do you know?
Simple. If the traditional notion of marriage (which you defined as banning gay marriage) continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery or bigotry akined to racism or homophobia and the state enforces this, then I personally don't see how the priority of natural parenthood would be preserved or more cohabitation would not happen. It would clearly discourage incoming future generations from practicing or holding an ideal traditional understanding of marriage.
In 2009, amicus curiae National Organization for Marriage commissioned a survey in Massachusetts of attitudes about marriage five years into that state's experiment with same-sex marriage. The survey found that ―in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent.‖ National Organization for Marriage, The 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey.
@kenballer00 I'm not taking anything by NOM or any "defend the family" organization seriously. These are biased studies, there are other factors that didn't make the ideal of a married mother and father 100% in the first place and until "family" organizations start paying attention to those reasons instead of making same sex marriage in places like Massachusetts the scape goat, they won't be resolved. Show me a study for someone that isn't in a "defend the family" organization and I'll listen.
As far as the evidence behind the argumentation, It just would not be realistic to find the effects with less than 10 years of gay marriage being legal. I explained logically why but even sciencifically it would not be realistic. Contemproary experts that represented the plaintiffs in the Perry case even said or agreed that its not realistic to find those effects with this limited time span and its impossible to predict the future.They also said that it would be a fundmental change to marriage.
@kenballer00 Then why did you use a study about a state that has had gay marriage legalized for 5 years as evidence of it already affecting things, in regards to children needing a married mother and father? Why? If we need to give it 25 years. See hypocritical again and that had nothing to do with my comment and it sounds like another scripted Conservative "defend the family" talking point. Sorry.
@kenballer00 "They also said that it would be a fundmental change to marriage." Okay but wasn't allowing women more rights in a marriage a "fundamental change"? Wasn't allowing people *gasp* that were interracial to marry a "fundamental" change. This isn't the first time that marriage has had to be redefined to make sure everyone has their constitutional rights, even if people have to go to the courts and force conservative people like yourself to give people their due rights.
Not exactly, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children.
@kenballer00 Oh enough about the screaming, crying children that you have to raise til 24 now because of the economy. According to you, it's for procreation, yet we have came back to the same question I had in the first place.
If marriage is just about Procreation, then WHY are couples that are infertile and unable to conceived allowed to MARRY if it's just about RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION? It's not about that, it's about heterosexual conservatives wanting it to be a "Special Right" for them.
By contrast with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like this. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter so the state has absolute right as established by the U.S. supreme court to deny those relationships.
NO, you just can't comprehend. I will explain it again. We don't need encouragement for something that is already biologically determined for people to procreate.
Marriage socially and legally regulates procreation in a productive manner to reduce the consequences of certain adult choices. As a result, This process ends up being called and known as the promotion (term:marriage) of RESPONSIBLE procreation. Therefore, marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for RESPONSIBLE procreation.
@kenballer00 You're right I can't comprehend Conservative Talking Points because they make no sense, By the way here's what I put:
WHY are couples that are infertile and unable to conceived allowed to MARRY if it's just about RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION?
I mentioned Responsible Procreation, maybe you should learn some comprehension too and stop putting others down because they don't agree with your points that are meant to discriminate against a group of people, have a great life.
I told you already. The state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many heterosexual situations like this, this clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
Its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
This is the function of family law that is described as the "channeling function": [I]n the channeling function the law recruits, builds, shapes, sustains, and promotes social institutions. The channeling function does not specifically require people to use these social institutions, although it may offer incentives and disincentives for their use.
Primarily, rather, it is their very presence, the social currency they have, and the governmental support they receive which combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to use them. Thus people can be said to be channeled into them.‖
Furthermore, Defining marriage as the union of a husband and wife recognizes a core biological reality—that each child has a parent of each sex.
And that's my opinion, I'm allowed to have it and it's my constitutional right to disagree with the majority that voted for Prop 8. It's my right to call the arguments that Pro-Prop 8 people have hypocritical.
"Moral disapprobation of an activity is not sufficient reason to prohibit that activity" - what was found in the case Lawrence Vs Texas (2003). I suspect that this test will be used by the courts to determine if the govt. can restrict marriage in this manner.
2 guyz cant make a human being and 2 girls cant make a human being. yet a guy and a girl can make a human being. go figure...... keep the marriages between a guy and girl simple as that.
@jstmeconman Should a man and a woman who can't make a human being (due to medical issues that prevent them from being able to concieve) not be allowed to marry?
@Cirvantes123 yes they should be allowed to marry cuz we have medical experts that fix those medical issues with medical knowledge thanks to millions of years of research on how to make babies.
@jstmeconman What if they have no intention of ever having kids? What about people who are too old to have kids? You are not required to have babies in order to get married.
@jstmeconman Some people have incurable infertility. Scientists have now been able to make mice using the sperm from two male mice alone (no female eggs required).
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 invert ur dick, one gay at a time. what does one gay sperm say to the other gay sperm...............................how to u find the egg in all this crap hahahahaha
i love the child argument, without a father, a child is 5 times more likely to be in poverty and commit crimes, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and the state would help in the upbringing. But that comes from enduring hetero couples getting divorced :) so by that logic as well having 2 dads would be twice as good for the child having a male role model :) Plus the marriage issue was over, once the state started marring people, as the state can't discriminate.
Yeah, what determines a kid's general outlook and future in life is having a stable loving household - and if you have 2 loving dads or 2 loving moms, you get the same effect as a loving dad/mom.
We were put on this earth to be married as a man and a woman no other way. Im sorry if your were born gay just dont act on it. jeez if they unleash marriage for gays were going to have an aids pandemic and you gays r going to kill yourself through disease.
@jstmeconman If that is true, please show me which of the following countries that allow same sex marriage is having this aids pandemic? Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bermuda Brazil Canada Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Ireland Israel Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Romania Russia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Uruguay You have 30 seconds...
@jstmeconman lol I hope you are kidding. I want you to be unselfish and not have sex ever. Aids is not from gay sex it`s from unsafe sex. ( I mean come on). It`s true men have a testosterone driven urge to have sex more than women,but through sexual education things have changed. In a civil era like we are living in it should be obvious we don`t choose our sexuality. I
I'm sorry that you were born on this earth a retard. Just don't act on it, or breed for that matter. If they let you marry, we could have a stupidity pandemic, and we'd all kill ourselves thanks to you.
i am praying to god that prop 8 gets over turned we have fought so hard for this moment....i may only be 16 but not only will this affect me in the future but my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community too i truly hope that god will help these anti gay christain see the truth if only they could see things through our eyes and see the discrimination luckly better days are ahead i can feel it
Is there de-facto divorce when a husband loses his sexual organs from cancer? I think this could follow from this definition of marriage. The loss of the partners genitalia could be a reason for divorce ie. irreconcilable differences. The chemo shots completely suppress testosterone. Could forced de facto divorce be imposed on the often elderly marital partners. Forced separation happens now and radically violates the right to the constitutional happiness of married people, largely elders.
After the witch trials held in post war Japan, causing dishonor and suicide among servicewomen, a tiny proportion of military gays were kicked out of the military, and largely in the lowest ranks. The case from which this ban is derived regards a heterosexual couple. A wife complained to her husband's commanding officer that her husband was forcing her
I should clarify... I meant that the second opening statements weren't as substantial as the first. The testimony of the witnesses was incredibly moving and powerful.
These re-enactments are a service to all Americans. Kudos. When I have some extra money (providing the world doesn't end first), you will have our monetary support as well. But I do wish that the video clips that were entered into evidence and viewed by the Court were part of the re-enactment.
Watching the plaintiffs' testimony had me in tears. Their experiences so mirror my own. Exactly what are we supposed to be protecting children from?
Why is the judge not stopping the defense when he says that gays are "re-defining" the institution of marriage to remind counsel that that's what Proposition 8 does? It was only Prop8 that first attempted to define marriage at all. So it's willfully ignorant to go on claiming that gays seek to offer a definition here.
The plaintiffs would do well to counteract the defenses claims that only straight marriages are "traditional" by pointing to the activities of the early Romans who first defined marriage in the same history that our laws are derived from. The Romans of course viewed marriage through a lens which was not yet tinted with Christianity and considered the institution to be one under state control. It is for this reason that the state gives license for marriage today.
Not only are the arguments of the defense illogical, circular and generally bigoted, they are totally blind to the facts of history in a way that is entirely Eurocentric/Amerocentric. Not to mention statistically misleading and self contradictory.
Interesting how often the Defense seems to quote President Obama. I find it hard to believe that anyone from their side has anything but contempt for him-- EXCEPT when they can take something he said and use it to their benefit. I would submit that Prop. 8 supporters are many of the same people waving Obama-as-Hitler posters at healthcare rallies.
In Sacramento right now, every TV station is talking about this channel and these videos!!..and it is on all of their cairons while they report the news!!
I attended the trial and Cooper in person looks old and unhealthy and also looks like he has had a bad hair transplant. Per his bio I suspect he is mid to late-50s but he looks at least 10 years older than this.
@ContentAnimeFan He went to University of Alabama and is licensed to practice law only in Alabama and District of Columbia. I suspect since this is a federal trial he is allowed to serve-even though this case is in CA.
I cannot listen to that deep south, shit kicker, bible thumping, self-righteous imbecile. The bigots need their noses rubbed into their mile high, stinking pile of shit that they've created!
I don't agree with him either, but there's no need to get nasty. We don't know that the lawyer even REALLY believes all that he's saying. He's just doing his job.
@muffinwoman45 Agreed, that would be an ad hominum argument, 'kill the messenger." How many votes can be bought by the 12 million dollars contributed by the LDS Church. How many Mormons vote in California? We were told to vote for this. This was unconstitutional from the get go. All our elections
are bought by someone, and all this abuse should be stopped, but the Constitution bans the establishment of religion. Rearing children is one feature of happiness
@kenballer00 Not really, in fact you suggest to me that voters can vote in laws on religious grounds, when the Supreme Court found in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that laws cannot be grounded in religious reasons unless they have a valid secular purpose.
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
@kenballer00 But laws still need to comply with the Constitution of America, even if it was elected by the voters. Have you looked at the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) from the Supreme Court? That was a 1st Amendment case which dealt with the establishment clause and struck down a law voted in by the people. Pastors etc. can still express their views (freedom of speech/expression) on this topic. The democratic will cannot enforce laws that are in contrary to the Constitution.
@kenballer00 But laws still need to comply with the Constitution of America, even if it was elected by the voters. Have you looked at the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) from the Supreme Court? That was a 1st Amendment case which dealt with the establishment clause and struck down a law voted in by the people. Pastors etc. can still express their views (freedom of speech/expression) on this topic. The democratic will cannot enforce laws that are in contrary to the Constitution.
What you are saying is not 100% correct. it was the Louisiana legislature that passed a law, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith of Caddo Parish, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" not the people. The voters your talking about were the legislators. So the representative democracy cannot enforce those kind of laws but the people through direct democracy can indeed establish any religion they want.
if you going to claim that there would be a violation on equal protection grounds to allow the voters to vote, then thats another argument or discussion that you did not raise before. Yes, if you are saying that whether a U.S. supreme court deciding an amendment voted in by voters violates the equal protection clause and overturns it is a good thing or fine, then I would agree with you regarding that issue. Also, I would agree that the 1st amendment applies to the states but NOT the people.
@kenballer00 It applies to the people in that they thorough direct democracy or representative democracy cannot enact laws and state constitutional amendments that violate the US constitution, which includes the 1st Amendment. The democratic will of the people cannot establish a religion, which would be in violation of the Establishment Clause. Pure and simple. I did not discuss allowing "voters to vote" or anything like that.
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a STATE nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. "
I am sure noticed that within this quote or case it did not mention the people of that state not being allowed to enact laws or vote them in via ballot box. You should read your sources more carefully.
@kenballer00 But state laws and state constitutional amendments enacted by the people through direct democracy via a ballot box will still need to follow US Constitution. eg Romer Vs Evans (1996) which struck down such ballot initiative.
Or do you mean that the people can enact laws that do not become part of the state?
I told you. I agree regarding other amendments and provisions of the U.S. constitution. I just don't accept your claim that it violates the 1st amendment. So what is your point?
@kenballer00 All I claim is that laws enacted on a religious basis only cannot pass US Constitutional muster, either by direct democracy or representative democracy. You said earlier that that "Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own," which is false.
If you believe its false. Then, where is your written evidence in the constitution or constitutional law that disproves my claim. So far all of your so-called sources that attempted to establish or show this failed to do so .
@kenballer00 Because the US Constitution is supreme with all matters! You have suggested that laws, from the will of the people, can be enacted because "the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own." Laws cannot be based on religious reasons only, and must have a secular purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). This case WAS a constitutional case. What case law(s) have you got to support your claims?
AGAIN, I told you I agree with you regarding anything outside the 1st amendment that religious reasons cannot be the only grounds. However, if you are including the 1st amendment as well regarding direct democracy, then you are wrong and the case you mention does not make your claim anymore right.
This is what the 1st amendment states - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." On THAT basis was Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) decided.
Where does the constitution make a distinction between direct and representative democracy?
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE. "
@kenballer00 So you are discussing the 10th Amendment now, before was just the 1st amendment alone and your claim that "if you are including the 1st amendment as well regarding direct democracy, then you are wrong and the case you mention does not make your claim anymore right."
Very true, so long as they also follow the other provisions of the US Constitution. Does this Amendment make a distinction between direct and representative democracy? I don't see how it does. Case law etc?
If you are referring to the 1st amendment, then I would say YES because the Establishment clause does not say the people cannot pass a law purely on religious grounds but its the federal government and the state as established by case law that they cannot pass those kind of laws.
@kenballer00 Does any case law support your interpretation that the people (but not Govt.) can pass laws based solely on religion? I would say no as the 10th Amendment says that “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." The law must not be prohibited to the states before the people can enact them. The 1st Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion.
Well thats the thing, it just goes back to what the 1st amendment says about it. Where the constitutional provision or case law on it says that the federal governement and the state cannot pass such laws and this has not included the people. Now, I have heard that current supreme court justice Clarence Thomas said that the people can establish a religion which I am currently looking for this statement but I do not know of any case law on it.
@kenballer00 Yes Clarence Thomas and Scalia would agree with this, but their constitutional interpretation is in the minority. In reality the majority of court has found that the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Equal Protection Clause (which Thomas disagrees with). In United States v. Darby (1941) the court said that the 10th Amendment was a "truism" that really does not have much effect. Only a very small number of law were found to be against the 10th Amendment.
I think you mean that the 14th amendment applies to the states while the Bill of rights apply to the federal government because remember there are two Equal protection clauses : The 5th and 14th amendment.
Nevertheless, you are correct that the 10th amendment does not have that much effect but it does not change what I said earlier about voters not violating the 1st amendment.
@kenballer00 The court found that the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) , through the 14th Amendment, is applicable to the states, see Roper v. Simmons (2005) for example.
Laws still can contravene the US Constitution, whoever put them into law. The 1st Amendment apples to all government activity, either by the legislature or direct democracy (ie the people as you call them). Again Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) The people enact state laws, and state laws must be constitutional."
Again, the Edwards v. Aguillard case did not involve direct democracy but it was still the legislator and the governor passing and signing the law in and enforcing it.
I think you are missing the true meaning and purpose of the inactment of that provision of the 1st amendment. Its there to prevent one religion from having dominance over another publicly since there is so many religions out there. The amendment is there to respect diversity but more importantly uphold equality.
@kenballer00 Edwards v. Aguillard did not involve direct democracy yes but direct democracy is still under the scrutiny of the 1st Amendment, which applies to all state laws regardless of how they were enacted. How else will the people pass laws without the state/government power?
The Supreme Court has generally interpreted the 1st constitution as creating a strict barrier between the church and the state, see Engel v. Vitale (1962) for example. Not my interpretation, but that of the court.
You see In a direct democracy every single member of the group has an equal say in every single decision unlike In a representative democracy where people (respresentatives) are chosen by the members to act on behalf of others. The majority of people can easily vote in representives the state which can easily impose a law that can favor or promote one group of people over another.
@kenballer00 I know all of that, but the US Constitution does not differentiate between laws enacted by direct democracy and representative democracy. The people in the 10th Amendment refers to the Government. Again can your provide case laws etc asserting your claims?
Yeah but it goes back to what I said about the 10th amendment and the difference between representative and direct democracy regarding the powers not delegated to the constitution: The state OR the people. Unless you have case law undermining what I am saying The constitution's 10th amendment is my evidence. It does not matter if the legislator has to be the one approve of the intiative in the first place because the 10th amendment is clear that the state and people are separate powers.
@kenballer00 Not really, as the state enforces laws that are enacted either by direct or representative democracy. The people alone simply cannot enforce laws. Again, case law that shows that the people can enact laws on their own without government/state? The 10th Amendment allows laws to be passed by the people IF the state can pass them and it has constitutional muster.
Correction: the representatives democracy (legislator) is the state itself and enforces laws. Legislators can enact and enforce a law without the governor's consent and the people. This is why the 10th amendment says " nor prohibited by it to the States". However, if the legislator gives the people the power by allowing them to vote and enforce laws, then it would not be a 1st amendment violation. You pretty much aluded to it already so I don't understand what your problem is
@kenballer00 But direct democratic procedures are still scrutinized by the constitution (Rover Vs Evans 1996). There is nothing in 1st Amendment jurisprudence that suggests that direct democracy measures can be used to bypass it, or indeed any other constitutional provision. In fact, Proposition 8 proponents abandoned moral and religious arguments early on in the case, as they knew they would not succeed with them due to the 1st Amendment. All Laws MUST be consistent with the constitution.
Let me take back something I said earlier that I feel was incorrectly stated on my part. I did not mean to say that direct democracy would bypass the establishment clause. I admitted early that I don't have prove of this claim in the form of case law. What I was saying is that prop 8 or any other amendment does not violate the 1st amendment and was just trying to challenge your claim that it does.
@kenballer00 But this is what you said in your very first comment - "Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own." You also said " So the representative democracy cannot enforce those kind of laws but the people through direct democracy can indeed establish any religion they want." This is all false.
No matter what happens even if its not legal people will find a way
I STRONGLY s upport same sex marriages as i am bisexual
Where there's a will there's a way
danifuckingdenial 1 week ago
People define words not the other way around. Further more, words evolve in the definition as time progresses.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
My comment is that if two people want to get married they should be able to, it should not be a law that just because some people to approve of this i think its none of their business! If others can get married I believe that in all fairness anyone should be able to marry. its because some people are prejudice and I think these people are full of crap and need to get a life and leave others alone, I mean would these same people let others tell them who they can be with? i think not!!
angel4063 7 months ago
social marrage is not fundamental marrage.
flowewritharoma 7 months ago
Jesus Christ, there are hours and hours of this boring shit!!!
lonstar70 9 months ago
"Good morning again Judge Jud.... Walker." LOL
wheelzwheela 9 months ago
What I really hate about lawmakers discussing gay marriage to enact as a law, is that they always bring religion in to it. The Constitution SHOULD bar out the involvement of religion towards any law discussion.
TheDementedDemon 9 months ago
@TheDementedDemon exactly. I was taught that there was meant to be a separation of church and state because the religious people could say "because god said so" and get whateverthefuck they want
wolfstar124 2 months ago
@wolfstar124 Yeah, that's pretty much what it is, I guess. Yet people still like to bring the belief of man and woman marriages in to it.
TheDementedDemon 2 months ago
I definately support gay marriage, so there's my bias while watching this, but I admire this lawyer nonetheless. A tough argument to make, but I think he made it well.
kathleentube 10 months ago
If marriage is only about procreation then birth control needs to be outlawed in any state that uses that justification immediately and it needs to be mandated that married heterosexual couples have children and any couple that doesn't have children should lose their marriage and infertile or older couples shouldn't get a marriage license either, if marriage is all about procreation. It's so hypocritical.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
There has been state efforts in the past but a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples is constitutionally unenforceable because heterosexual (man/woman) marriage is a fundamental right. Also, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many situations like it, this would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@bre
Thus, its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
By contrast, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like it. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I completely understand that it would be unconstitutional to deny infertile couples the right to marry, that was the point I was trying to make. Just like it's obnoxious and unconstitutional to continue to deprive Homosexual couples the right to marry. Who a person marries should not be up to anyone especially an ignorant majority.
I again ask you why are gays only denied marriage because they can't reproduce and heterosexual infertile and older couples can? It seems hypocritical.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
Those aren't the only reasons. The main reason why the state allows the infertile but doesn't with same sex couples ultimately deals with marriage which is separate from procreation because marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for the social regulation of procreation. In other words, The state is there to promote responsible procreation.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Okay, I've heard that argument a lot and I still don't get it, it still seems hypocritical, sorry. What's responsible procreation?
breemystic 1 year ago
@b
if the state allowed a man and a woman who can't procreate to get a marriage license, the state would not have to change the existing marriage laws that promote traditional marriage. However, if the state started to give marriage licenses to same sex couples, this would force the state to change all the existing marriage laws that define and promote marriage between a man and a woman to a gender neutral understanding of marriage where the government would feature both relationships together.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "his would force the state to change all the existing marriage laws that define and promote marriage between a man and a woman to a gender neutral understanding of marriage where the government would feature both relationships together."
I as a woman in a heterosexual marriage don't get why that's such a problem. My love and marriage with my husband is equal to that of a gay couple that's been committed to each other for longer. Again, I still don't get it.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
The promotion of the term marriage is NOT there to promote what is considered responsible but its specifically there to socially construct and encourage heterosexuals to be responsible with their natural urges to procreate. Heterosexuality or opposite sex couples pose a threat to society. This is why the state steps in to regulate their action in order for them to not harm society since their sexual acts can procreate accidentally through wild passion.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
Marriage socially and legally regulates what naturally comes about from that union to connect, sustain, and keep that natural unit together so it won't fall apart.
Same sex couples do not have to worry about procreating accidentally or at a very young age which would lead to more overpopulation. Therefore, parentage is always planned and chosen and always at a point where they are or would be able to support a family on their own.
kenballer00 1 year ago
if same sex couples are labeled as exactly the same as opposite sex couples, a number of things would no longer be encouraged. Marriage would no longer be about responsible procreation making less incentive for heterosexuals to choose marriage first over cohabitation to procreate and less resistant to procreate responsibly because marriage is about acting on adult desires and not about children. Then, it would no longer be about natural parenthood and connecting mothers and fathers to children.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@bree
This means pontentially less incentive for the mother to connect her child to (biological) father or for the father to feel responsible because biological fathers are irrelevant and any two people can raise kids. It could be mom and boyfriend, mom and grandma etc.
In other words, Instead of marriage being a necessity to raise children in the best situation it becomes a matter of choice. This also includes connecting children to their biological fathers. Fathers are a matter of choice.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So it's really just about procreation, okay then back to my question, after all of your comments about marriage being exclusively for heterosexuals to raise kids responsibly and to procreate period why is contraception, abortion, or marriage for any infertile couple like me and my husband or for same sex couples? If it's just about procreation?
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
The Ends: What the state does to combat this is raise and train each generation from birth and on to make sure they make better and planned choices to focus their natural urges to procreate in a productive manner and create better families as a result.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Why is abortion legal within married couples if marriage is just about binding a man and woman together to express their desires and have kids?
breemystic 1 year ago
Are you saying that people would live together more outside of married if marriage was no longer "special" because it would no longer be for a man and women. Then how do you explain the divorce rate being so high in states that don't have same sex marriage? How can you explain the cohabitation rate being up in states that don't have legal same sex marriage.
You can't put the problems with married couples now on same sex couples. Heterosexuals ruin the state of marriage on their own.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
However, cohabitation not only increases the likely of accidental pregnancies but there is some evidence of a causal relationship between to cohabitation and divorce. In addition, There is evidence of causation between parental separation and poor child outcomes. Child abuse is also very frequent within cohabition couples particularly with the mother and her boyfriend.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "This means pontentially less incentive for the mother to connect her child to (biological) father or for the father to feel responsible because biological fathers are irrelevant and any two people can raise kids."
What if the child was conceived "irresponsibly" and the father leaves the mom? What if the father is a substance abuser or a criminal and the mother didn't know? What do those situations have to do with same sex couples getting married since it's happening now?
breemystic 1 year ago
@bree
I don't think you quite understand the "responsible procreation" theory the state argues and practices yet. I agree that the state does not require us to procreate once licenses are given. Marriage and procreation are not one in the same thing because we don't need outside encouragement for something that is already naturally encouraged nor do we need more people.
Studies show over 50% of pregnancies are unintended with most of them happening in cohahabitation.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 'Studies show over 50% of pregnancies are unintended with most of them happening in cohahabitation."
Okay but I live in a state that doesn't have same sex marriage and what it does have is a high cohabitation rate, high abortion rate, high child abuse rate, high divorce rate, high teen pregnancy and unintended pregnancy rate? So if same sex marriage is not legal then what's the real cause of all those problems. Let's stop making same sex couples the scape goat.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
Therefore, Since same sex couples cannot procreate irresponsibly, that would be an important governmental distinction between the two relationships that justify and require a different name like civil unions to continue advancing the state's interest to publicly encourage responsible procreation in was has been shown to be a better situation than cohabitation to each generation for heterosexuals to choose FIRST while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt with civil unions.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I still don't get it, not because I'm not uneducated, ignorant or anything else, but that it just doesn't seem right to say that these problems, People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly, would get worse because same sex couples could be married.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
The marriage laws are mainly about it influencing and training the next generation where their minds are vulnerable. Its about channeling the traditional understanding of marriage particularly within the schools. Then, the state reinforces the traditional idea of marriage in other ways ,with the help of society, inside and outside of what schools promote and advertise.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
The Means: The culturally understood term marriage is used as a means to do this because studies show that people who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Therefore, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation if they choose to get married according to other studies.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, Okay so it's all due to gay people wanting to get married. People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly when gays weren't even allowed to be married?
Again it seems like homosexuals are a scape goat and that nobody's addressing the real issue.
breemystic 1 year ago
there are many things that would change on legal grounds from redefining marriage. One way is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money and the media like newspaper wedding annoucements. The other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specfic terms. lastly, businesses are changed to fit the standards of the state like adoption agencies. With civil unions or infertile couples, child abusers etc, none of this would be the case.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
This whole process would take at least 20-25 years or 10-15 MORE yrs. when it comes to the Netherlands to see whether the next generation would potentially be more likely to grow up more inclined to either choose cohabitation first before they get married if marriage is redefined legally because they are infused with a non-traditional view of marriage or choose marriage as the first option if the traditional definition of marriage is preserved and fixed.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Okay so how do conservatives who voted against Prop 8 plan to "fix" the following problems:People divorce, separate, abuse their kids, kids live without their father due to their father not wanting to be in the picture and the mother doesn't want to be with the father, cohabitate, get pregnant outside of marriage irresponsibly.
Just tell me how these problems are to be fixed other than denying same sex marriage since these are current problems in states with Traditional marriage.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
We have already made efforts ,before gay marriage was even an issue, to cut down on divorce and continue to do so through the covenant marriage movement which use to be led by Steve Nock. Couples are forced to go through a lot of obstacles before they get married with marriage counseling and when they attempt to get a divorce in some states in order to filter out the Britney Spears of the world. This was during the many celebrity divorces that happened through 2001-03.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemys
In addition, the marriage movement itself or the Promotion of traditional marriage is attempting to fight divorce as well. As I explained before, studies show that people who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Therefore, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation according to other studies.
However, even if this was not the case, two wrongs should not make a right anyways.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Okay but how does creating barriers to being able to have a heterosexual marriage fix the following problems: child abuse within a married heterosexual couple, domestic abuse, kids living without their father because the mom and and were denied a marriage license because they didn't pass counseling, the dad not wanting to be in the picture, the mom not wanting the dad to be in the picture, cohabitation because of denial of a marriage license, getting pregnant outside of marriage?
breemystic 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "Couples are forced to go through a lot of obstacles before they get married with marriage counseling and when they attempt to get a divorce in some states in order to filter out the Britney Spears of the world."
If anything, this encourages cohabitation instead of encouraging traditional marriage. My heterosexual parents are divorced and my mom will not marry again, because it's too hard to get divorced even though she's been with the man for 15 years, so states that make it
breemystic 1 year ago
The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this passion by limiting as many adult choices that have the potential to hurt family and kids.The definition of marriage is one way the law of marriage helps further this civic purpose: our laws give a baseline definition of who is or is not married, providing a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, or even adultery, can be understood.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
Marriage encourages those who are responsible for creating children, both fathers and mothers, to jointly assume responsibility for raising the child -- mitigating the gendered inequality which frequently occurs when single mothers bear the burdens of parenting alone. Given the high number of men who do not care for the children created by acts of sexual passion, encouraging natural parents to feel responsible for their children is also an important good.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Okay that's great but you didn't really answer my question at all? You just provided the stock answer that I call Conservative Talking Points. I don't get what any of this has to do with making homosexuality an acceptable thing or allowing gays to marry. It just seems like you're making stuff up just to deny up to 10% the right to marry the person of their choice and saying that the already rampant problems with "traditional" marriage would get worse? How do you know?
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
Simple. If the traditional notion of marriage (which you defined as banning gay marriage) continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery or bigotry akined to racism or homophobia and the state enforces this, then I personally don't see how the priority of natural parenthood would be preserved or more cohabitation would not happen. It would clearly discourage incoming future generations from practicing or holding an ideal traditional understanding of marriage.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
In 2009, amicus curiae National Organization for Marriage commissioned a survey in Massachusetts of attitudes about marriage five years into that state's experiment with same-sex marriage. The survey found that ―in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent.‖ National Organization for Marriage, The 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I'm not taking anything by NOM or any "defend the family" organization seriously. These are biased studies, there are other factors that didn't make the ideal of a married mother and father 100% in the first place and until "family" organizations start paying attention to those reasons instead of making same sex marriage in places like Massachusetts the scape goat, they won't be resolved. Show me a study for someone that isn't in a "defend the family" organization and I'll listen.
breemystic 1 year ago
As far as the evidence behind the argumentation, It just would not be realistic to find the effects with less than 10 years of gay marriage being legal. I explained logically why but even sciencifically it would not be realistic. Contemproary experts that represented the plaintiffs in the Perry case even said or agreed that its not realistic to find those effects with this limited time span and its impossible to predict the future.They also said that it would be a fundmental change to marriage.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Then why did you use a study about a state that has had gay marriage legalized for 5 years as evidence of it already affecting things, in regards to children needing a married mother and father? Why? If we need to give it 25 years. See hypocritical again and that had nothing to do with my comment and it sounds like another scripted Conservative "defend the family" talking point. Sorry.
breemystic 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "They also said that it would be a fundmental change to marriage." Okay but wasn't allowing women more rights in a marriage a "fundamental change"? Wasn't allowing people *gasp* that were interracial to marry a "fundamental" change. This isn't the first time that marriage has had to be redefined to make sure everyone has their constitutional rights, even if people have to go to the courts and force conservative people like yourself to give people their due rights.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
Not exactly, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Oh enough about the screaming, crying children that you have to raise til 24 now because of the economy. According to you, it's for procreation, yet we have came back to the same question I had in the first place.
If marriage is just about Procreation, then WHY are couples that are infertile and unable to conceived allowed to MARRY if it's just about RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION? It's not about that, it's about heterosexual conservatives wanting it to be a "Special Right" for them.
breemystic 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemy
By contrast with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like this. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter so the state has absolute right as established by the U.S. supreme court to deny those relationships.
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO, you just can't comprehend. I will explain it again. We don't need encouragement for something that is already biologically determined for people to procreate.
Marriage socially and legally regulates procreation in a productive manner to reduce the consequences of certain adult choices. As a result, This process ends up being called and known as the promotion (term:marriage) of RESPONSIBLE procreation. Therefore, marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for RESPONSIBLE procreation.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You're right I can't comprehend Conservative Talking Points because they make no sense, By the way here's what I put:
WHY are couples that are infertile and unable to conceived allowed to MARRY if it's just about RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION?
I mentioned Responsible Procreation, maybe you should learn some comprehension too and stop putting others down because they don't agree with your points that are meant to discriminate against a group of people, have a great life.
breemystic 1 year ago 4
@breemystic
I told you already. The state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many heterosexual situations like this, this clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
Its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You like talking in circles don't you? Have a happy new year.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
Well you prompted me to go in circles by going in circles first and me having to remind you.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Have a happy new year and enjoy your special right to marriage.
breemystic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breemystic
WTF. I am not gay and I am not in a same sex relationship
kenballer00 1 year ago
harder to get married and divorced are perpetuating the problem and saying it's because of gay marriage, is what you're saying.
breemystic 1 year ago
@breemystic
This is the function of family law that is described as the "channeling function": [I]n the channeling function the law recruits, builds, shapes, sustains, and promotes social institutions. The channeling function does not specifically require people to use these social institutions, although it may offer incentives and disincentives for their use.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@breemystic
Primarily, rather, it is their very presence, the social currency they have, and the governmental support they receive which combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to use them. Thus people can be said to be channeled into them.‖
Furthermore, Defining marriage as the union of a husband and wife recognizes a core biological reality—that each child has a parent of each sex.
kenballer00 1 year ago
And that's my opinion, I'm allowed to have it and it's my constitutional right to disagree with the majority that voted for Prop 8. It's my right to call the arguments that Pro-Prop 8 people have hypocritical.
breemystic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Moral disapprobation of an activity is not sufficient reason to prohibit that activity" - what was found in the case Lawrence Vs Texas (2003). I suspect that this test will be used by the courts to determine if the govt. can restrict marriage in this manner.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fine Russian wife gettop5.info
MrAlexahankrj 1 year ago
The judge hella looks like he was laughing haha,
09RIOTRyan 1 year ago
Wow, i never even thought about the angle of marriage eliminating the awkward questions at hotels and banks etc.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Ironically the people against same-sex marriage are the biggest Fags..
LOLz
Smokey2300 1 year ago
Eat da po-po!
hherlevdk 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne You gotta be kidding me.
words18v1 1 year ago
2 guyz cant make a human being and 2 girls cant make a human being. yet a guy and a girl can make a human being. go figure...... keep the marriages between a guy and girl simple as that.
jstmeconman 1 year ago
@jstmeconman Should a man and a woman who can't make a human being (due to medical issues that prevent them from being able to concieve) not be allowed to marry?
Cirvantes123 1 year ago
@Cirvantes123 yes they should be allowed to marry cuz we have medical experts that fix those medical issues with medical knowledge thanks to millions of years of research on how to make babies.
jstmeconman 1 year ago
@jstmeconman What if they have no intention of ever having kids? What about people who are too old to have kids? You are not required to have babies in order to get married.
LifeUntilLove 1 year ago
@jstmeconman umm... "millions of years of research on how to make babies?"
i wouldn't trust wikipedia if i were you
mustangrun173 1 year ago
@jstmeconman Some people have incurable infertility. Scientists have now been able to make mice using the sperm from two male mice alone (no female eggs required).
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@jstmeconman go read a biology book.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 invert ur dick, one gay at a time. what does one gay sperm say to the other gay sperm...............................how to u find the egg in all this crap hahahahaha
jstmeconman 1 year ago
@jstmeconman why do the religious like to talk about dicks and gays?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
I love when the judge is facepalming.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
The Counsel for the Defense of Prop 8 sounds like an Ëx-gay"...what an idiot.
Vladimir0538 1 year ago
i love the child argument, without a father, a child is 5 times more likely to be in poverty and commit crimes, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and the state would help in the upbringing. But that comes from enduring hetero couples getting divorced :) so by that logic as well having 2 dads would be twice as good for the child having a male role model :) Plus the marriage issue was over, once the state started marring people, as the state can't discriminate.
recyard12x 1 year ago
@recyard12x
Yeah, what determines a kid's general outlook and future in life is having a stable loving household - and if you have 2 loving dads or 2 loving moms, you get the same effect as a loving dad/mom.
HisEmptyHouse 1 year ago
I have one thing to say. You, sir, will soon be only getting divorce cases. /leave
(oh, wait, they're trying to ban divorce, too :P <3RescueMarriage)
RandomBoxStudio 1 year ago
The Universal rights of childs! where are them?
andreaskyum 1 year ago
what was the ruling on this, if one has been decided yet?
mikooou 1 year ago
lol 7:05 at the time when loving was decided. I did not know there was a time when love was decided. This makes me so angry.=(
mikescott27 1 year ago
It's sick that people can vote to remove rights from groups of people.
lisambofoh 1 year ago
He mentioned bisexual means loving 2 people at the same time.
WTF?
mochatmh 1 year ago
@mochatmh A lot of people believe bisexual means you like two people at once.
lisambofoh 1 year ago
@mochatmh I know, its like saying a heterosexual man wants to marry two women because he loves both of them!
mozpiano2 1 year ago
We were put on this earth to be married as a man and a woman no other way. Im sorry if your were born gay just dont act on it. jeez if they unleash marriage for gays were going to have an aids pandemic and you gays r going to kill yourself through disease.
jstmeconman 1 year ago
terriblefilms 1 year ago
@jstmeconman lol I hope you are kidding. I want you to be unselfish and not have sex ever. Aids is not from gay sex it`s from unsafe sex. ( I mean come on). It`s true men have a testosterone driven urge to have sex more than women,but through sexual education things have changed. In a civil era like we are living in it should be obvious we don`t choose our sexuality. I
mikescott27 1 year ago
@jstmeconman
I'm sorry that you were born on this earth a retard. Just don't act on it, or breed for that matter. If they let you marry, we could have a stupidity pandemic, and we'd all kill ourselves thanks to you.
Have you seen Idiocracy?
TwinSkies 1 year ago
maybe they should learn how to read before they "re-enact" the trial
faithemariagress 1 year ago
how is this so long???????
pizzawithmushrooms94 1 year ago
The actor playing Cooper did a good job. I could tell because I wanted to punch him.
lordlacolith 2 years ago 4
i am praying to god that prop 8 gets over turned we have fought so hard for this moment....i may only be 16 but not only will this affect me in the future but my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community too i truly hope that god will help these anti gay christain see the truth if only they could see things through our eyes and see the discrimination luckly better days are ahead i can feel it
jackthayer 2 years ago 2
Is there de-facto divorce when a husband loses his sexual organs from cancer? I think this could follow from this definition of marriage. The loss of the partners genitalia could be a reason for divorce ie. irreconcilable differences. The chemo shots completely suppress testosterone. Could forced de facto divorce be imposed on the often elderly marital partners. Forced separation happens now and radically violates the right to the constitutional happiness of married people, largely elders.
Ghostbead 2 years ago
After the witch trials held in post war Japan, causing dishonor and suicide among servicewomen, a tiny proportion of military gays were kicked out of the military, and largely in the lowest ranks. The case from which this ban is derived regards a heterosexual couple. A wife complained to her husband's commanding officer that her husband was forcing her
to perform sexual acts against her will.
Ghostbead 2 years ago
Very interesting to hear the second chapter and compare to the first. A lot of substance lost here.
talalikambo 2 years ago 3
I should clarify... I meant that the second opening statements weren't as substantial as the first. The testimony of the witnesses was incredibly moving and powerful.
talalikambo 2 years ago 4
These re-enactments are a service to all Americans. Kudos. When I have some extra money (providing the world doesn't end first), you will have our monetary support as well. But I do wish that the video clips that were entered into evidence and viewed by the Court were part of the re-enactment.
Watching the plaintiffs' testimony had me in tears. Their experiences so mirror my own. Exactly what are we supposed to be protecting children from?
ltndncr 2 years ago 21
Why is the judge not stopping the defense when he says that gays are "re-defining" the institution of marriage to remind counsel that that's what Proposition 8 does? It was only Prop8 that first attempted to define marriage at all. So it's willfully ignorant to go on claiming that gays seek to offer a definition here.
informatist 2 years ago 2
The more they speak the more they lose! They're absolute religious idiots!
sftenderloin 2 years ago 26
@sftenderloin you just lost
ZackMackable 1 year ago
The plaintiffs would do well to counteract the defenses claims that only straight marriages are "traditional" by pointing to the activities of the early Romans who first defined marriage in the same history that our laws are derived from. The Romans of course viewed marriage through a lens which was not yet tinted with Christianity and considered the institution to be one under state control. It is for this reason that the state gives license for marriage today.
informatist 2 years ago
Not only are the arguments of the defense illogical, circular and generally bigoted, they are totally blind to the facts of history in a way that is entirely Eurocentric/Amerocentric. Not to mention statistically misleading and self contradictory.
Em4Tango 2 years ago 2
Interesting how often the Defense seems to quote President Obama. I find it hard to believe that anyone from their side has anything but contempt for him-- EXCEPT when they can take something he said and use it to their benefit. I would submit that Prop. 8 supporters are many of the same people waving Obama-as-Hitler posters at healthcare rallies.
whosyourmatty 2 years ago 2
Amazing stuff. Can't wait to see William Tam in all his evil glory.
FreedomUSA1 2 years ago 2
In Sacramento right now, every TV station is talking about this channel and these videos!!..and it is on all of their cairons while they report the news!!
deeter131 2 years ago 5
I attended the trial and Cooper in person looks old and unhealthy and also looks like he has had a bad hair transplant. Per his bio I suspect he is mid to late-50s but he looks at least 10 years older than this.
CarolSpeaks 2 years ago
@ContentAnimeFan He went to University of Alabama and is licensed to practice law only in Alabama and District of Columbia. I suspect since this is a federal trial he is allowed to serve-even though this case is in CA.
CarolSpeaks 2 years ago
I cannot listen to that deep south, shit kicker, bible thumping, self-righteous imbecile. The bigots need their noses rubbed into their mile high, stinking pile of shit that they've created!
sftenderloin 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Em4Tango 2 years ago
Whoa, hey.
I don't agree with him either, but there's no need to get nasty. We don't know that the lawyer even REALLY believes all that he's saying. He's just doing his job.
muffinwoman45 2 years ago
@muffinwoman45 Agreed, that would be an ad hominum argument, 'kill the messenger." How many votes can be bought by the 12 million dollars contributed by the LDS Church. How many Mormons vote in California? We were told to vote for this. This was unconstitutional from the get go. All our elections
are bought by someone, and all this abuse should be stopped, but the Constitution bans the establishment of religion. Rearing children is one feature of happiness
and personal fulfillment.
Ghostbead 2 years ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 What about the Establishment clause?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
I thought I answered this already
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Not really, in fact you suggest to me that voters can vote in laws on religious grounds, when the Supreme Court found in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that laws cannot be grounded in religious reasons unless they have a valid secular purpose.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenballer00 But laws still need to comply with the Constitution of America, even if it was elected by the voters. Have you looked at the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) from the Supreme Court? That was a 1st Amendment case which dealt with the establishment clause and struck down a law voted in by the people. Pastors etc. can still express their views (freedom of speech/expression) on this topic. The democratic will cannot enforce laws that are in contrary to the Constitution.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But laws still need to comply with the Constitution of America, even if it was elected by the voters. Have you looked at the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) from the Supreme Court? That was a 1st Amendment case which dealt with the establishment clause and struck down a law voted in by the people. Pastors etc. can still express their views (freedom of speech/expression) on this topic. The democratic will cannot enforce laws that are in contrary to the Constitution.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
What you are saying is not 100% correct. it was the Louisiana legislature that passed a law, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith of Caddo Parish, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" not the people. The voters your talking about were the legislators. So the representative democracy cannot enforce those kind of laws but the people through direct democracy can indeed establish any religion they want.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@m
if you going to claim that there would be a violation on equal protection grounds to allow the voters to vote, then thats another argument or discussion that you did not raise before. Yes, if you are saying that whether a U.S. supreme court deciding an amendment voted in by voters violates the equal protection clause and overturns it is a good thing or fine, then I would agree with you regarding that issue. Also, I would agree that the 1st amendment applies to the states but NOT the people.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 It applies to the people in that they thorough direct democracy or representative democracy cannot enact laws and state constitutional amendments that violate the US constitution, which includes the 1st Amendment. The democratic will of the people cannot establish a religion, which would be in violation of the Establishment Clause. Pure and simple. I did not discuss allowing "voters to vote" or anything like that.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mo
In Everson v. Board of Education:
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a STATE nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. "
I am sure noticed that within this quote or case it did not mention the people of that state not being allowed to enact laws or vote them in via ballot box. You should read your sources more carefully.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But state laws and state constitutional amendments enacted by the people through direct democracy via a ballot box will still need to follow US Constitution. eg Romer Vs Evans (1996) which struck down such ballot initiative.
Or do you mean that the people can enact laws that do not become part of the state?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
I told you. I agree regarding other amendments and provisions of the U.S. constitution. I just don't accept your claim that it violates the 1st amendment. So what is your point?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 All I claim is that laws enacted on a religious basis only cannot pass US Constitutional muster, either by direct democracy or representative democracy. You said earlier that that "Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own," which is false.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
If you believe its false. Then, where is your written evidence in the constitution or constitutional law that disproves my claim. So far all of your so-called sources that attempted to establish or show this failed to do so .
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Because the US Constitution is supreme with all matters! You have suggested that laws, from the will of the people, can be enacted because "the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own." Laws cannot be based on religious reasons only, and must have a secular purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). This case WAS a constitutional case. What case law(s) have you got to support your claims?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
AGAIN, I told you I agree with you regarding anything outside the 1st amendment that religious reasons cannot be the only grounds. However, if you are including the 1st amendment as well regarding direct democracy, then you are wrong and the case you mention does not make your claim anymore right.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 How so? Case law etc?
This is what the 1st amendment states - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." On THAT basis was Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) decided.
Where does the constitution make a distinction between direct and representative democracy?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
From the 10th amendment:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE. "
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So you are discussing the 10th Amendment now, before was just the 1st amendment alone and your claim that "if you are including the 1st amendment as well regarding direct democracy, then you are wrong and the case you mention does not make your claim anymore right."
Very true, so long as they also follow the other provisions of the US Constitution. Does this Amendment make a distinction between direct and representative democracy? I don't see how it does. Case law etc?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
If you are referring to the 1st amendment, then I would say YES because the Establishment clause does not say the people cannot pass a law purely on religious grounds but its the federal government and the state as established by case law that they cannot pass those kind of laws.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Does any case law support your interpretation that the people (but not Govt.) can pass laws based solely on religion? I would say no as the 10th Amendment says that “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." The law must not be prohibited to the states before the people can enact them. The 1st Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
Well thats the thing, it just goes back to what the 1st amendment says about it. Where the constitutional provision or case law on it says that the federal governement and the state cannot pass such laws and this has not included the people. Now, I have heard that current supreme court justice Clarence Thomas said that the people can establish a religion which I am currently looking for this statement but I do not know of any case law on it.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yes Clarence Thomas and Scalia would agree with this, but their constitutional interpretation is in the minority. In reality the majority of court has found that the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Equal Protection Clause (which Thomas disagrees with). In United States v. Darby (1941) the court said that the 10th Amendment was a "truism" that really does not have much effect. Only a very small number of law were found to be against the 10th Amendment.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
I think you mean that the 14th amendment applies to the states while the Bill of rights apply to the federal government because remember there are two Equal protection clauses : The 5th and 14th amendment.
Nevertheless, you are correct that the 10th amendment does not have that much effect but it does not change what I said earlier about voters not violating the 1st amendment.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@kenballer00 The court found that the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) , through the 14th Amendment, is applicable to the states, see Roper v. Simmons (2005) for example.
Laws still can contravene the US Constitution, whoever put them into law. The 1st Amendment apples to all government activity, either by the legislature or direct democracy (ie the people as you call them). Again Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) The people enact state laws, and state laws must be constitutional."
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
Again, the Edwards v. Aguillard case did not involve direct democracy but it was still the legislator and the governor passing and signing the law in and enforcing it.
I think you are missing the true meaning and purpose of the inactment of that provision of the 1st amendment. Its there to prevent one religion from having dominance over another publicly since there is so many religions out there. The amendment is there to respect diversity but more importantly uphold equality.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Edwards v. Aguillard did not involve direct democracy yes but direct democracy is still under the scrutiny of the 1st Amendment, which applies to all state laws regardless of how they were enacted. How else will the people pass laws without the state/government power?
The Supreme Court has generally interpreted the 1st constitution as creating a strict barrier between the church and the state, see Engel v. Vitale (1962) for example. Not my interpretation, but that of the court.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
You see In a direct democracy every single member of the group has an equal say in every single decision unlike In a representative democracy where people (respresentatives) are chosen by the members to act on behalf of others. The majority of people can easily vote in representives the state which can easily impose a law that can favor or promote one group of people over another.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I know all of that, but the US Constitution does not differentiate between laws enacted by direct democracy and representative democracy. The people in the 10th Amendment refers to the Government. Again can your provide case laws etc asserting your claims?
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mo
Yeah but it goes back to what I said about the 10th amendment and the difference between representative and direct democracy regarding the powers not delegated to the constitution: The state OR the people. Unless you have case law undermining what I am saying The constitution's 10th amendment is my evidence. It does not matter if the legislator has to be the one approve of the intiative in the first place because the 10th amendment is clear that the state and people are separate powers.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Not really, as the state enforces laws that are enacted either by direct or representative democracy. The people alone simply cannot enforce laws. Again, case law that shows that the people can enact laws on their own without government/state? The 10th Amendment allows laws to be passed by the people IF the state can pass them and it has constitutional muster.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpiano2
Correction: the representatives democracy (legislator) is the state itself and enforces laws. Legislators can enact and enforce a law without the governor's consent and the people. This is why the 10th amendment says " nor prohibited by it to the States". However, if the legislator gives the people the power by allowing them to vote and enforce laws, then it would not be a 1st amendment violation. You pretty much aluded to it already so I don't understand what your problem is
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But direct democratic procedures are still scrutinized by the constitution (Rover Vs Evans 1996). There is nothing in 1st Amendment jurisprudence that suggests that direct democracy measures can be used to bypass it, or indeed any other constitutional provision. In fact, Proposition 8 proponents abandoned moral and religious arguments early on in the case, as they knew they would not succeed with them due to the 1st Amendment. All Laws MUST be consistent with the constitution.
mozpiano2 1 year ago
@mozpian
Let me take back something I said earlier that I feel was incorrectly stated on my part. I did not mean to say that direct democracy would bypass the establishment clause. I admitted early that I don't have prove of this claim in the form of case law. What I was saying is that prop 8 or any other amendment does not violate the 1st amendment and was just trying to challenge your claim that it does.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But this is what you said in your very first comment - "Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own." You also said " So the representative democracy cannot enforce those kind of laws but the people through direct democracy can indeed establish any religion they want." This is all false.
mozpiano2 1 year ago