Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[LnGrrrR]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

Why not unions that are called marriages? If they provide the same benefits, why play semantics?

Or let's just change the term "marriage" to "civil union" regarding all government paperwork. That would work too.

I don't care what religious ceremonies call them.

[Drachen]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

I am not being trying to argue here. Which definition of marriage are you using? Because this whole thing is only about civil unions.

[LnGrrrR]

"Having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."

I really disagree with this part of Judge Walker's ruling.

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?

[spursncowboys]

Sounds good LnGrrrR.

[MannyIsGod]

I firmly believe the SC will uphold this ruling no matter what the ninth rules (although I expect them to uphold it as well). There is a reason that when opponents of sexual marriage go to court they almost always lose.

And no, that reason isn't judicial activism. Its our state and federal cons utions and their proclamations of equality. I've argued that the Equal Protection clause would be the key to sexual marriage for years.

[LnGrrrR]

Sounds good LnGrrrR.

If churches don't want to grant gay marriage, I'm totally fine with that. But I think the government should be consistent.

[spursncowboys]

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?

I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

[spursncowboys]

i posted some evidence but I'm not gonna look for it.

[LnGrrrR]

I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

That was to DarrinS, SnC And yes, I completely agree with you. I think most children just want to be in a caring, loving family, whether those parents are straight or not.

There's so many bad parents in our world, I would think it's quite unfair to deny a gay couple the ability to raise a healthy, happy family. Heck, the first generation of gay people to marry will probably be the best parents ever. You know they don't want to hear crap about being bad parents.

[Drachen]

I firmly believe the SC will uphold this ruling no matter what the ninth rules (although I expect them to uphold it as well). There is a reason that when opponents of sexual marriage go to court they almost always lose.

And no, that reason isn't judicial activism. Its our state and federal cons utions and their proclamations of equality. I've argued that the Equal Protection clause would be the key to sexual marriage for years.

I wonder if they lost prop 8 on purpose. Winning prop 8 wins the battle (marriage in CA), losing prop 8 prompts this challenge, if they win all of their appeals, losing prop 8 wins the war (marriage in the USA).

[DarrinS]

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?

I can only imagine it would be a little awkward at school functions, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, I don't think it will be 5-4. I bet Chief Justice Roberts sides with those pesky gays!

[MannyIsGod]

I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

THAT is something I can firmly agree with.

[DarrinS]

Oh well, I guess we should just go ahead and congratulate Whinehole and Marcus Bryant.

[LnGrrrR]

I can only imagine it would be a little awkward at school functions, etc.

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

And Manny, if you've looked at Scalia's opinion on Lawrence v Texas, I don't see how he can rule against this case.

[MannyIsGod]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

And Manny, if you've looked at Scalia's opinion on Lawrence v Texas, I don't see how he can rule against this case.

True conservative thinkers will side with the ruling of Judge Walker.

[clambake]

True conservative thinkers will side with the ruling of Judge Walker.

manny laying out the trap.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would love to see a case in this judges court challenging the federal drug laws for Marijuana using the exact same equal protection arguments on alcohol vs. pot.

[DarrinS]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

I suppose.

[MannyIsGod]

I would love to see a case in this judges court challenging the federal drug laws for Marijuana using the exact same equal protection arguments on alcohol vs. pot.

The equal protection clause only applies to people not items.

I WISH there was a ruling to be had but that battle is truly legislative.

[SnakeBoy]

were you jealous of all the abuse that snakeboy was getting?

How is ChumpDumper showing a lack of reading comprehension on a simple sentence and asking a completely irrelevant question and me responding to his stupid questions with stupid questions considered abuse?

[Spurminator]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

Funny you should say that, because that's the argument I've actually heard most often from (mostly old) people who still oppose interracial marriage.

It's all about the children. We must protect them from being different!

[DMX7]

Nah, we've already concluded you are simply afraid to answer because it undermines the argument you didn't know you made and confused with a question you asked.

[SnakeBoy]

I've been thinking about this question, and I think it's somewhat of a red herring. Does it matter if they "chose" to be gay or not? Is a biological factor necessary? I think the majority of people who answer honestly understand that gender preference is a part of who a person is, and that determination is not made consciously (as one would decide, for instance, what shirt to wear). Given that, it seems to be severely limiting the "pursuit of happiness" of gay people to not allow them to marry, as most people would see marriage as a strong way to pursue happiness.

No it doesn't matter to me if they chose to be gay or not. From my viewpoint the "it's biological" argument is really just an effort to sell the gay rights movement as the same as the civil rights movements of race and gender. I do see the flaw in pushing this idea though. That is that being gay is somehow a biological disorder that they have no control over. If that is ever proven to be true then you can't help but get to the issue of "curing" the disorder. And as I said I would find it amusing if it were proven that being gay were simply something like the body not producing enough of some chemical and gay advocates were forced to protest the medical treament of it.

[Spurminator]

I really couldn't care less if it's biological or not. To me it's like arguing whether left-handed people were born that way. It's irrelevant. They're left-handed. Who cares?