Prop 8 Cases

[scorpionwarrior]

How is this case going, Athos?

[Markie_G]

the fact that people would even try to AMEND the constitution to force a rigid definition of marriage on other is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!

[Athos]

How is this case going, Athos?

The Court should be hearing arguments sometime this month I believe. But, given the State's current grim situation, the State and it's citizens have a much bigger problem to worry about. Currently, I'm up to my nose in research, and finals are this week. Things are getting hectic here (as well as for me).

The only real update I have is that the petitioners filed a motion to amend a pleading. Otherwise, that's all.

[Apostrophe]

The way I see it is...if you look at any country other than the USA marriage is a religion thing and it should stay that way. Politics should stay out of it, each religion has it's own ceremonies and rights and such so unless the US government is going to accommodate them all with their own individual laws they should just butt out of it...I mean who gave the government the power to butt in on religious stuff anyway? I was under the impression that your constitution stated something like separating politics and religion.

That's my opinion anyway.....Prop 8 or whatever it is has nothing to do with me and doesn't effect me.....hmm perhaps my opinion doesn't matter then...oh well

If Politics stayed out of Marriage, there'd be no laws regarding it, meaning that homosexual marriage would be legal. Then all the neo-cons and Repugs would whine and [censored]. Wah.

Seriously, though, who are they hurting by getting married? [censored] prop 8 and [censored] the people who voted for it. I'm not usually one to insult in debates, but I'm sick of people being closed-minded, blind, ignorant, bible-thumping, regressionist, neo-conservative, redneck, inbred, morons that don't accept any lifestyle but their own.


And for those of you that hump your bibles over this issue, get over yourselves, please. I'm by no means a Christian, but Jesus's word was to love thy brother, and to turn the other cheek should something bother you. So how about not being hypocrites and actually practicing the love and acceptance TRUE christianity teaches? Does two men or two women getting married bother you? Turn the other cheek, even if that is an absurd, ridiculous, ignorant thing to actually be BOTHERED by.

Point. Set. Match.

[Athos]

If Politics stayed out of Marriage, there'd be no laws regarding it, meaning that homosexual marriage would be legal. Then all the neo-cons and Repugs would whine and [censored]. Wah.

Seriously, though, who are they hurting by getting married? [censored] prop 8 and [censored] the people who voted for it. I'm not usually one to insult in debates, but I'm sick of people being closed-minded, blind, ignorant, bible-thumping, regressionist, neo-conservative, redneck, inbred, morons that don't accept any lifestyle but their own.

And for those of you that hump your bibles over this issue, get over yourselves, please. I'm by no means a Christian, but Jesus's word was to love thy brother, and to turn the other cheek should something bother you. So how about not being hypocrites and actually practicing the love and acceptance TRUE christianity teaches? Does two men or two women getting married bother you? Turn the other cheek, even if that is an absurd, ridiculous, ignorant thing to actually be BOTHERED by.

Point. Set. Match.

It begs the question though of why politics got tangled with marriage in the first place. I would presume that the issue would be is for tax purposes. That's it. And it's not just neo cons and repubs who are whining over it. Some of the voter bases of the dems strongly supported Prop 8 (latino and black populations).

Granted, no one is hurt, but I think religious people of all faiths have a fear that if homosexuals could marry, then it would grant LGBT members the license to walk into a synagogue, mosque, temple, or church and just demand to get married, and spiritual leaders would have to comply (though it would be against their will). The pendulum seems to be moving towards the way that anything with a religious emblem should be illegal. In Missouri, there is a lawsuit to ban the bible, in South Carolina, a religious license plate is being challenged in federal court. The current tax laws refrain all religious leaders from discussing political, or else those religious institutions will lose their tax exemption status. I'm not saying (as stated previously) that religion and politics should ALWAYS be mixed. However, there are political issues which do involve some kind of nexus with religion, such as "the right to die." And in those instances when moral issues such as the right to die is raised, then religion should be able to speak.

[Nathaniel Darling]

It begs the question though of why politics got tangled with marriage in the first place. I would presume that the issue would be is for tax purposes. That's it. And it's not just neo cons and repubs who are whining over it. Some of the voter bases of the dems strongly supported Prop 8 (latino and black populations).

Granted, no one is hurt, but I think religious people of all faiths have a fear that if homosexuals could marry, then it would grant LGBT members the license to walk into a synagogue, mosque, temple, or church and just demand to get married, and spiritual leaders would have to comply (though it would be against their will). The pendulum seems to be moving towards the way that anything with a religious emblem should be illegal. In Missouri, there is a lawsuit to ban the bible, in South Carolina, a religious license plate is being challenged in federal court. The current tax laws refrain all religious leaders from discussing political, or else those religious institutions will lose their tax exemption status. I'm not saying (as stated previously) that religion and politics should ALWAYS be mixed. However, there are political issues which do involve some kind of nexus with religion, such as "the right to die." And in those instances when moral issues such as the right to die is raised, then religion should be able to speak.

Thats total blasphemy. o.O;; Being one of the LGBT community myself, I see it as absolutely absurd that people would think that homosexuals would be so rude to religious people as to walk into a church and try to force them to marry them against their will, and I'd be highly disappointed in any of my fellow LGBT community members that would do such a thing. Personally I think it should be legal, but churches should have the right to refuse to marry us if it goes against their religion, it's only fair, seeing as the constitution grants them their right to practice their religion the way they see fit, and neither I nor any of the LGBT community should be able to have a say in it. I'm not going to go to some Christian church and tell them I want to marry my boyfriend and force them to marry us, because neither me nor James are religious, and it'd be unfair to trample upon their beliefs by forcing them to do that. However this is not saying that there should not be a way for us to LEGALLY marry without having to do it in a Church Temple etc, and still be granted the exact same legal benefits as a heterosexual married couple. It does, however, tend to bring the question, what if a religious homosexual couple would like to have a Christian ceremony? I'm not quite sure where I stand on that just yet, so I'll just uphold to my earlier statement.

As far as religion and politics being mixed, I don't think they should ever be mixed. It seems that the term "Separation of Church and State" today is being ignored. Laws should not be created based on religion, because that is unconstitutional, and goes against the freedom of religion. If I am being forced to uphold a law based on a religion that I do not follow, my freedom of religion is being trampled on. The fact that our Pledge of Allegiance has the words "One nation under God" in it is almost unconstitutional, seeing as the God referred to is most certainly the Christian God, but I'm not gonna b*tch about something as trivial as that, and I don't care too terribly about it. (Just making a point.) I agree though, that an attempt to ban anything religious also goes against that. The Bible should not be banned anywhere, that too is trampling on the right to follow the religion you choose. As far as the whole "right to die" thing goes, it shouldn't be mixed necessarily with RELIGION but with morality. This applies to any of the things in which "religion" coincides with politics. True, some moral values have religious roots, but in this day and age, that doesn't really matter, it's merely about what is right and wrong, and treating fellow humans AS humans. Asking if assisted suicide is morally wrong rather then against religious beliefs. I say leave the term religion out of it entirely.

[Athos]

What law or laws have been made that are based on religion? The Pledge of Allegiance is just a formality. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate before opening up the legislative sessions, open in prayer (State legislatures do the same). In the Supreme Court of the United States when the Court starts it's session, the Marshal shouts: The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" (On the other hand, in the 70's the Supreme Court banned school prayer in Engel v. Vitale ; also the Court in a sense established the wall for separation of church and state, see Lemon v. Kurtzman).

As far as the whole "right to die" thing goes, it shouldn't be mixed necessarily with RELIGION but with morality. This applies to any of the things in which "religion" coincides with politics. True, some moral values have religious roots, but in this day and age, that doesn't really matter, it's merely about what is right and wrong...

Without religion, how do you determine what is right and wrong without holding it to "divine law" if you will.

[Athos]

Update: California Supreme Court has ordered that responses to the Attorney General's brief were due on Monday.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments Calendar have been scheduled.

Also, on a side note: ADF filed a complaint in U.S. District Court to challenge a campaign finance law pertaining to people who donated to Prop 8 and had personal information posted on the website (via California Sec. of State's website) which allegedly resulted in supporters of Prop. 8 receiving threats, acts of violence, vandalism and even in one case--resigning from their jobs.

To my knowledge, I have not heard the Court issue a date for oral arguments.

[The Rage]

Looking forward to it.

[Raoul Duke]

As far as the whole "right to die" thing goes, it shouldn't be mixed necessarily with RELIGION but with morality. This applies to any of the things in which "religion" coincides with politics. True, some moral values have religious roots, but in this day and age, that doesn't really matter, it's merely about what is right and wrong...

Without religion, how do you determine what is right and wrong without holding it to "divine law" if you will.

Your accidental syntax error aside**:

Thesis: Religion is completely unnecessary to morality.

Evidence#1: Humans created religion [in their silliness]
Evidence#2 [the watered down evidence that wont offend people of religion]: Humanism. More specifically, secular humanism. Humanism exists. It means you care about humanity. We don't need non-existent gods to care for humanity.



** "Without religion ... how do you determine what is right and wrong.... without holding it to 'divine law' (aka. religion)"

[The Rage]

I agree, I know plenty of non-religious people with scruples-> which is the actual thing that helps determine "right" and "wrong"

One can even say that there is no right, only the lesser of the 2 evils or vice versa.

Anyway, getting back on subject, a lot of these posts have excellent points, but who will triumph legally is still to be known...

[Athos]

UPDATE:
"The amicus briefs in the Proposition 8 cases are starting to come in. Here is the first, from the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Here is one from six Professors of Law in support of Prop. 8; here is one from various labor organizations against the measure; and here is one on the same side from a group of Sacramento lawyers. None of these briefs are currently available on the California Supreme Court's web-site." You can go here to read the briefs: California Constitution Blog. (Taken from the California Constitution blog)

Note: An amicus brief is just short for amicus curiae . Amicus curiae is Latin for "friend of the court." These briefs are filed by people who is not part of the lawsuit but have a strong interest in the matter (from Black's Law Dictionary). On a side note, these briefs help raise other issues and give other information which have not been raised or given in the main briefs.

[Athos]

Just in: The Supreme Court of California has scheduled oral arguments for March 5.

[Symos]

How I see it, America was founded on secular principles, if the only arguements for the proposition are based on religious dogma, then it becomes a non-issue and should not be put to the vote. Besides, same sex marraige had been going on for months there, what negative effects really happened?

[Athos]

It isn't America that were talking about, it's just California. It hasn't been pushed to become a federal issue. Negative effects that I can recall were: (1) Old lady was beaten down for wearing a cross when (I think) she was just coming out of a grocery store where an anti prop 8 thing was happening, (2) a few people lost their jobs, defamation and etc... when a group of anti-prop 8 people discovered the list of people who donated money to the prop 8 fund from the Secretary of State's website.