TheSkepticalHeretic
New Member
It's the same problem that the religious have with anything that contradicts their beloved mythology. If you yank one stone from the foundation, their entire house of silliness caves in upon itself.ImprobableJoe said:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Proposition 8 shot down in California
- Thread starter Mapp
- Start date
TheSkepticalHeretic said:
I belive It goes further than that, yes they want their book to be correct but they also want to feel superior to other people, so they create this ideas that certain practices make people lesser and thus give the biggots ample opportunity to spew their venom and discharge their frustrations against somebody without guilt or in many cases fear of retribution.
UPDATE: Judge Walker has denied defendants motion to say and the temporary stay will be lifted on August 18th, provided that a higher court does not overturn the ruling on the stay.
http://www.seegersalvas.com/Nostay.pdf Decision behind the link. (PDF Format)
http://www.seegersalvas.com/Nostay.pdf Decision behind the link. (PDF Format)
nasher168 said:
It means that come the 18th (provided the stay is not granted by a higher court before then) Homosexual couples will be able to get married in California at least until the appellate trial where. I have full confidence that Judge Walkers ruling on prop 8 will hold out through the appeals, but there is the chance that the ruling is appealed, which would overturn the ruling.
The Prop 8 supporters will be asking the Ninth Circuit to issue a stay. Now that Judge Walker has denied the stay, they may (and will) file the Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit immediately. Although the arguments and the applicable law are the same as Judge Walker addressed, the Ninth Circuit will make its own determination and it is not bound by Judge Walker's decision.
A few words about the procedures we'll see at the Ninth Circuit:
* Once the Prop 8 Proponents file their Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit, opposition papers are due ten days later and a response to the opposition is due seven days after that. That being said, the Court has the power to shorten time for the opposition and the reply papers to be filed.
* After the motion is fully briefed, the Court usually makes it decision based on the papers alone, without having a hearing. But the Court may schedule a hearing if it so desires. The Motion to Stay must be decided by a three-judge "Motions Panel," but as I will discuss below, a single judge on the Motions Panel may decide to issue a temporary stay while the full panel makes its decision on the Motion.
* For August, the Ninth Circuit Motions Panel is composed of Judge Edward Leavey (a Reagan Appointee from Oregon), Judge Michael Hawkins (a Clinton Appointee from Arizona), and Judge Sidney Thomas (a Clinton Appointee from Montana). For what it's worth, Judge Thomas interviewed with President Obama and VP Biden to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court and he was rumored to be on the "short list" for the appointment; he may still be on the list for future vacancies.
* The Motions Panel decides only the Motion to Stay, not the merits of the appeal. The merits of the appeal will be decided by a panel of three judges who will be assigned shortly before the hearing (months away).
* In addition to filing an ordinary Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit, the Prop 8 Proponents also will file an Emergency Motion requesting a temporary stay. To do this, they must show that "to avoid irreparable harm relief is needed in less than 21-days."
* When an Emergency Motion is filed, it is immediately referred to the lead judge of the Motions Panel. If the lead judge is unavailable, the Emergency Motion is referred to the second judge and then the third judge of the Motions Panel. The judge to whom it is referred may either grant temporary relief or convene the Motions Panel (usually by telephone) to decide the motion. My guess is that in a case as newsworthy as this, the lead judge would prefer to convene the entire panel rather than make the decision himself. In any event, there could be a decision on the Emergency Motion within hours after the motion is filed, but it's more likely that it will take a day or two for the Judge(s) to rule.
So we're now in the same place we were before. Waiting to see what the Ninth Circuit does.
Now on the subject of the appeal there is an interesting development, Chris Geidner just posted this at Metro Weekly (http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5507), including this about the question of standing:
In addition to the background of the merits of the proponents' case, Walker also addressed a question raised by the plaintiffs about whether the proponents even have the ability to bring an appeal of the judge's ruling. This issue, referred to as standing, is in question because none of the state defendants, the ones charged with enforcing Proposition 8, currently have expressed any opposition to Walker's ruling. If none of state defendants appeal, there is an unresolved legal question as to whether the proponents alone can appeal the court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
After detailing those issues, Walker concluded, "As regards the stay "¦ the uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success."
What happens if Prop 8 proponents don't have standing?
That would mean that Judge Walker's decision would go into effect and could not be appealed. Same-sex couples in California would once again be able to marry, and Prop 8 would be permanently struck down. This would be a mixed blessing, on one hand it means the issue here in California where I live would be over and done with which is a good thing, on the other hand it means it wont end up before the US supreme court which means that the ruling will only be good in California and wont effect the rest of the country while if it goes to the US supreme court a ruling in favor of homosexual couples would allow for gay couples to get married all over the country.
Who gets to decide whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to appeal?
The Ninth Circuit will have the first chance to rule on that issue. No matter which way the Ninth Circuit rules, either side could appeal that decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can then choose whether to rule on the issue or let the Ninth Circuit's decision stand.
RichardMNixon
New Member
IBSpify said:
Does common law not apply across state lines?
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act homosexual marriages performed in other states are only recognized if the state chooses to recognize them, thus a homosexual couple which gets married in Massachusetts and then moves to Virginia, Virginia will not recognize the fact that they are married.
The lawsuit earlier in this year against DOMA only affected how the federal government views homosexual marriages, so that homosexual couples which get married will be able to benefit from the federal benefits of marriage (such as sponsoring your spouse for citizenship) which until earlier this year they were unable to recieve
The lawsuit earlier in this year against DOMA only affected how the federal government views homosexual marriages, so that homosexual couples which get married will be able to benefit from the federal benefits of marriage (such as sponsoring your spouse for citizenship) which until earlier this year they were unable to recieve
DEXMachina
New Member
I am seeing a lot discussion over a relatively small subject as far as society and the world goes. I guess there is a lot of emotion behind much of the debate.
From a logical standpoint, gay marriages should be banned only if there is a true reason to do so. The only one that I can think of is the fact that homosexual relationships have a 0% probability of human reproduction. If enough people choose to have gay marriages, the human race will be unable to sustain itself.
That said, as is the human race has more than enough hetrosexual relationships to keep the population up, so for now, there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage; in fact, encouraging it may help control the world's exploding human population.
From a logical standpoint, gay marriages should be banned only if there is a true reason to do so. The only one that I can think of is the fact that homosexual relationships have a 0% probability of human reproduction. If enough people choose to have gay marriages, the human race will be unable to sustain itself.
That said, as is the human race has more than enough hetrosexual relationships to keep the population up, so for now, there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage; in fact, encouraging it may help control the world's exploding human population.
Caractacus
New Member
This isn't an argument against gay marriage, it's a bad argument against gay people.DEXMachina said:
DEXMachina
New Member
Caractacus said:
It looks like a bad argument against gay people because I did not intend it to be an argument against gays (I would have a hard time making a good argument against them, since there is nothing emotionally/morally wrong with them). I am pointing out that this issue can be solved, or at least thought out quickly and simply, if all the cultural/emotional/political baggage was boiled away. As is, the US is using up alot of time and resources to find a solution to this.
DEXMachina said:
Why do you equal marriage = reproduction? These people are homosexuals none-the-less and will not participate in reproduction (unless they want to of course) regardless of being able to marry or not. Homosexuals can also serve a role in reproduction by the rearing of orphans or unwanted children, but thats yet another obstacle for the gay rights.
Banning gay marriage does not turn off 'teh gay'.
DEXMachina
New Member
TechTiger said:
I am keeping a logical perspective over the issue, rather than claiming some religious/moral arguement. It is true that gay couples can find ways to raise children. It is my opinion though, that the fact that two same sex individuals cannot form a child together will have an effect on their ability to reproduce (and to a lesser extent society's ability to reproduce). e.g. there is no way a gay couple will be able to have an accidental pregnancy.
DEXMachina
New Member
TechTiger said:
In general, being able to marry is key for 2 parents to raise a child. By banning gay marriage, governments can effectively reduce the number of willing couples to form families, and increase the population. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop the growth due to accidental pregnancy, unless everyone adopts abortion(another touchy issue). In fact, allowing gay marriages will provide spare parents for orphans of hetrosexual couples.
Simply put, with the state of affairs as it is, I totally approve of gay marriages; I disapprove of the idea of being for or against the idea due to a religious/political/emotional motivation.
No, marriage is just a state of relations we humans have invented to formalize monogamy. And then in later times it gives you financial benefits. Other than that, it has no practical meaning. And I dont see how banning gay marriage would result in a population increase, please elaborate.
DEXMachina
New Member
TechTiger said:
You are right that marriage was orginally used to control the populace by making sure the males didn't go seeding females all over the place
In our time however, marriage has become something of a cultural necessity; most people feel compelled to be married someday For most laymans, marriage = an expression of love. The exact issues are complicated(we could discuss this forever... :? ) In the end, if gays are forbidden to marry other gays, and are still compelled to marry, they will get married hetrosexually instead (abiet they will likely hate it and divorce a few years later, possibly after some kids have been born)
That might have been true 30 or 40 years ago, but in most civilized countries, being gay is no longer a tabu (some deviants of course). Homosexuals are able to live out their lifestyle and sexual orientation, thus there is no need to pretend to be heterosexual. And in our time, marriage is slowly becoming obsolete as well. The rights for those entering partnerships (both gay and straight) are starting to become at the level of being married (cant speak for all countries, but this is true in Norway at least). It's also become more socially acceptable.
Hi,
Canadian here.
We legalized gay marriage a while ago on a federal basis.
We allow open homosexuality in the military.
Sky hasn't fallen yet, Canadian soldiers are still some of the best in the world.
There's no logical argument not to allow gay marriage, my country proves this.
Canadian here.
We legalized gay marriage a while ago on a federal basis.
We allow open homosexuality in the military.
Sky hasn't fallen yet, Canadian soldiers are still some of the best in the world.
There's no logical argument not to allow gay marriage, my country proves this.