As I understand it, the suit isn't a federal suit though. (are we on the same page here?)

And by the way, that stratagy is actually very brilliant. I hate to be this partisan but its very Obama-esque in that the conservatives have painted themselves into a Federal corner, not wanting anything to me mandated from the U.S. government. Its so strong in fact that during a debate, Rudy could say he would not sign a federal ban on abortion because its a states rights issue.

I think these two guys are going for the jugular in california for a couple reasons...

1. On legal principle, you can win, and have it established. (culturally I mean)

2. the ruling as it stands is in direct violation of the equal protection clause. They made the point to say that you can't tell someone, we afford you all the liberties of anyone else; right to own property, right to vote, but then turn around and say "we don't like your sexual orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you." (I thought that was the strongest point)

Get back to me though Addy, I'd love to know your thoughts. That goes for everyone, I just know he's got a special viewpoint in this deabte being in the legal profession.

Question to adidasss since I somewhere remember you saying you were homosexual [and if you're not disregard this completely], but what is the importance in being allowed same-sex marriage? Is it a step in social acceptance? Is it the legal benefits that come with it? A cumulative effect [the more probably answer but explain it please if you say this one]?

I'm just wondering. If the legal benefits, would being given those benefits without the label of marriage matter?
I'm under the assumption that marriage and the church have gone hand and hand for quite some time. If the state were to get away from it's dealings with marriage and not have any rule over such, would the demand for the ability to marriage still be there?

You're obviously not American so circumstances here may be different but figured I'd try to get some opinions from the source.

It is actually, look it up...;)

Continental European law has very little to do with Anglo-American but I have done pretty extensive research on the subject in doing my thesis (which is on same-sex marriage in America btw). I've read a lot of literature and have come to a conclusion that U.S. Supreme Court could find that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (more likely) and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution (less likely in my opinion).

As I understand it, in Equal Protection doctrine, the essential question would be whether gays and lesbians comprise a "suspect class" which is a group of people that has: a) suffered a history of discrimination, b) whose characteristics bare no relationship to their ability to contribute to society, c) the said characteristics are immutable and d) is politically powerless. I believe that there is a case to be made that homosexuals qualify as a suspect class and are therefore entitled to heightened protection (which means the State would have to prove that the legislation in question serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Most of the cases I've gone through show that it's virtually impossible for the state to do so).

However, a lot of courts have made the contrary conclusion (based mostly on the latter two factors, immutability and political power), meaning the legislation is only subjected to rational basis review where it's the task of the plaintiffs to prove that there is no rational basis for the government to exclude them from the institution of marriage, which they've never managed to do (it's enough for the state to claim that it has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation and child rearing in a dual-gendered family, with apparently no real evidence to show that they're better served in such an environment).

Anyhooo! There's no telling how the Supreme Court would rule on that issue but according to some of the literature I've gone through, it appears it's been unwilling to expand the list of suspect classes ever since the 70s.

With the Due Process Clause the central issue is whether gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry. A fundamental right would have to be "deeply rooted in the nation's history such that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty", whatever that means. Again, most of the literature I've gone through makes a pretty convincing case that the Court's previous jurisprudence can accommodate the expansion of the right to marry to include same-sex couples but there's really no telling because its jurisprudence has been incredibly inconsistent.

So, obviously, in such an equally divided Court as we have now, it would come down to one judge, hence the huge risk because in case of a negative decision it would send back the gay rights movement years if not decades.

You're right, I am gay, and I believe it's both legal benefits and social acceptance (or "the right to have their relationship accorded the same dignity and respect as with opposite-sex relationships/marriages" to quote someone or other).

The Supreme Court of California specifically resolved this issue and naturally I tend to agree. It held that giving same-sex couples the same (state, let's not forget that DOMA denies the recognition of any federal rights to same-sex couples) rights as opposite-sex couples but at the same time retaining the designation of "marriage" solely to opposite-sex couples violates the state's Equal Protection Clause, because such a "separate but equal" system inflicts appreciable harm to same-sex couples seeing as how the institution of domestic partnerships doesn't have the same dignity or respect as does the institution of marriage.

Also, I knew I had to make this distinction clear in my paper too, and here's the confirmation. This whole debate is about the civil institution of marriage, which is very different from the religious institution. The former is regulated by the state which proscribes the conditions for its formation and dissolution. The latter (its dissolution) wasn't even possible (and still isn't in certain religions) for a long period of time until the state seized control of marriage and started regulating it. Various religions are still free to proscribe whichever conditions they like for their marriages, the state can't interfere, but it's very important to note that these two institutions are not the same thing and haven't been for a very long time in America.

I think it's unlikely that the civil institution of marriage is going to be abolished any time soon because, as I've stated a few posts prior, the state has a significant interest in promoting stable relationships which create a positive (well, that's debatable) environment for child rearing which, in turn, is the number one reason why marriage is considered a "fundamental right".

Sorry for the long-ass post, I went all "lawyerly" ...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c.../radosnice.gif

Great answers. Appreciate it.

...It's not as cut and dry as that--blacks and other minorities for instance voted in higher numbers in favour of banning same sex marriage than whites in California. In many ways a lot of black communities are more socially conservative than white communities....on the other hand there are a lot of *** conservatives who agree with almost the entire republican platform except for the socially conservative aspects(like *** marriage). A lot of democrats like obama have personal issues with *** marriage.

....banning the word *** makes this post seem kind of futile. Is the problem that there are a lot of 13 year old boys on this site?

I think you're ignoring key (and probably even more key) elements when you attribute it all to one community like that, the Mormon and Catholic church for instance. It also has way less to do with race then the socioeconomic status of particular aspects of Californian society.

......and I wasn't trying to list all the elements ,I was just saying it was more complex than "white conservatives" vs. everyone else. It be ridiculuous to say that their was something in a persons skin colour or genetics that causes a person to hold certain beliefs. I was talking about the socioeconomic status that's still closely related with skin colour/ethnicity that causes them to vote in certain ways....like before "irish" people became just regular white people they uniformly supported the democratic party.

NH finally went over I guess, huh?

Wow...that's six out of 50 then, 4 of which came this year...pretty spectacular.

I thought I posed this but...

If New York finally goes, and it will because Patterson needs numbers, and Manhattan will eradicate any senate hopefuls who don't outright support it, then RI has a massive chance of going with the tide.

Once that happens, the rhetoric will be ramped up against it, and California will flip out (early this time) and possibly even vote.

Still ashamed of my left coast :(

The flip side to that arguement is "we don't like your theological orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you."

It there was such a thing as *** marriage, and it was a federal law, then Churches and Ministers will be in trouble if they did not comply to two *** men wanting a marriage because of the equal protection clause.

If that were actually true then the Catholic church would already be in trouble for not allowing women to become priests, but it isn't so it's pretty apparent that this is a non-issue. Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion.

It's that damned Obama!

The Mormon church had a ban on black priesthood until the 1980s and also excluded them from all sorts of religious ceremonies. Just to add to your point. The ban being lifted had to do with a "revelation" which was supposedly had and not actual government interference.

I'm not talking only about the Catholic Church but any minister from any denomination or even a JP with a moral conviction who does not want to perform a relegious ceremony or preside over or legalize a marriage can not do so if there is a Federal Law supporting *** marriage and not risk legal action brought against him or her.

The is no law pertaining to who can be ordain in a Church, for whatever legal reason, but if a Church was part of the gov't, a Federal Government Established Church then they would under the law be required to follow Federal law.

That statement "Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion."
sounds a little bit intolerant of Religious organizations to use their conscience to decide for their own good.

That is in fact the flip side of their argument, but even still, thats not how the amendment works.

Priests and Ministers, as a group aren't allotted any rights. The 14th doesn't bar....uh barring rights, its a barring of selected rights.

Essentially you can't say "well you're human enough to do "x", "y", and "z". But not when it comes to "a." We don't like how you do "a" so we're not letting you do that.

That is illegal.

I'm not sure. If he's saying their allowed to be as intolerant as they want, thats not really judgemental.

But that is too ambiguous of an arguement. You know "a" could be murder, murder most foul.

I was using the Catholic church priesthood as an example. There are already countless ways in which churches engage in discriminatory behavior and basically none of it attracts the ire of the government. There's no reason that gay marriage would be any different.

LOL. I'm in favor of allowing religions to be as discriminatory as they want. In what way is that intolerant?

Who has the constitutional right to murder?

The military, as long as its not fellow Americans.

did you raise your index finger when you said that?

I'm fairly certain the Constitution doesn't say that, but if it did, then they couldn't take that right away alone.

The States.

This is completely false and just another proof of how some people are being brainwashed against same-sex marriage. The freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment and it's virtually impossible that a court decision or a law establishing the right of same-sex couples to marry on a federal level will somehow neglect to address and reaffirm this freedom.
A Church a part of the Government? Say what now? Have you actually read the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting the 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."

Please don't just regurgitate stuff your minister or someone else has said, you have the internet and are free to explore these things for yourself.

Same-sex marriage approved in Mexico City

Yesyesyesssss [[=

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

:yeah:

When do they rule on the Mormons?

What do you mean?

Awesome, for now. Let's hope it doesn't get overturned.

The Mormon's carried Prop 8.

I know, but is there some kind of case against them?

My attempt at a joke. I'm sure they'll be pissed, but it doesn't really have anything to do with them. The ruling decision said that the only evidence it could find for the rationality of the law was a "moral objection" (I think) which was not the basis for law (according to the Judge).

I thought it was a joke, but I was just checking my bases. You know a movie was made about the Mormon role in Prop 8's passing?

I didn't.Whats it called? (or am I taking the bait on a terrible joke?)

Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote

Read More: Yahoo News

**** Argentina.
What about New YORK??

What about New York?