Judge refuses to dismiss gay marriage ban lawsuit
I’m with the judge on this one. How does gay marriage interfere with heterosexual marriage and procreation? If gays can’t marry do conservatives think they will turn straight, get married and have babies? I really don’t see how discriminating against a segment of the population on something so basic as the right to marry is Constitutional.
A federal judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also signaled Wednesday that the measure’s sponsors will need to show that allowing gay couples to wed threatens traditional male-female unions.
Walker said significant questions remain about whether the voter-approved ban discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure’s backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.”
The judge demanded to hear how that goal would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
that is not what he should be deciding the case on. He should be deciding it on the Constitution itself, not the reason it was passed
barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
October 15th, 2009 at 9:29 am
As far as I can tell, he is. The question is the constitutionality of the discrimination against gays and conversely showing that gay marriage affects the rights of Hetro’s to a heterosexual marriage. In other words prove that the hetro’s have been discriminated against if gays are allowed to marry.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Wizcon, Why does it matter if the straights are discriminated against, that isn’t what the bill is after. The judge is overstepping the bounds of the case while looking for their way out
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
October 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“…Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.”
Judge Walker: “I just married 90-yr-old man & 80-yr-old woman. Doubt they’ll have kids!”
Those wishing to overturn prop 8 cite “equal protection” as the Constitutional issue.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am
@timesr, regardless of what the court has ruled in the past, marriage is not a fundamental right, and it is a contract. The government has the right to police contracts provided they are not targetorially discriminatory (this one, as a blanket, is not)
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Wizcon Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@Barga, Then how is this any different than discrimination in the work place? Employer/employee’s relationship is a contract.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@Wizcon, You are asking the wrong person… I believe that every person has the right to discriminate. As a buisness is an extension of the owner, the buisness does as well
granted, i wont shop or work for it, but they have that right
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
No, legally a business doesn’t have a right to discriminate. There are laws against discrimination which I believe you are aware of.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@Sage, sage, again, slow down one second. Here, like the previous post, i clearly said that it is what i believed, not the legal issue.
I believe that buisnesses should have every right to discriminate as they are (here is the ruling) a legal person
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think they should be considered a person.
If corporations are persons then when the corporation commits a crime everyone in the corporation should go to jail. With rights comes responsibility.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
@Sage, If I own a house, I can kick people out of it because they are white. Why can I not do this if I own the business?
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Because the law says you can’t.
Businesses do not exist just for the point of making a profit, they are for the good of the people and the community. At some level they operate in a manner that is open to the public and thus are regulated to provide safety to the consumer. In other words, they aren’t a private entity like your home.
If you were to run a business in your home you would then have to follow some regulations regarding that business.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, religion, sex, and national origin discrimination. Title VII applies to:
* employers with fifteen (15) or more employees
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are forty (40) years of age or older. The ADEA applies to:
* employers with twenty (20) or more employees
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. The ADA applies to:
* employers with fifteen (15) or more employees
Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) prohibits wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs within the same establishment. The EPA applies to:
* most employers with one or more employees
barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Sage, and I believe that the law is not constitutional
that said, i knwo it is currently the law
barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Desert Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
@Sage,
The priority for my small businesses is profit. If you mean by saying “for the good of the people and the community”, in an economic sense then I agree. If however, you intend to say that businesses are for the social good, I would argue that it is a distant second when managing the business.
Without profit, the benefits to the “people and community” are nil. The more profit, the bigger the “benefits” that are available for both economic impact and/or social benefits. You have to have money (profit) to give back to the community.
And I agree with Barga. Businesses should be able to discriminate any way they see fit. The free market quickly course corrects businesses that discriminate. Good businessman realize this and make every attempt to avoid any impropriety. The current employment laws have done nothing but enrichen lawyers, push companies and small businesses back on their heels, and create a workforce of slackers looking to get rich quick with a lawsuit for some perceived injustice.
Desert Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
@Desert Sage, Hey, I like the “Click to Edit” feature…
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Yes, we all saw how the free market quickly corrected in hiring blacks and women. Seriously, I can’t believe anyone believes that crap.
The profit does not benefit the community if it is ill gotten nor does it benefit the community if the community is harmed by the business….which is why businesses are regulated.
The point of what I said was that a business is not the same as a person’s home. To some extent a business at some level is open to the public and even with anti-discrimination laws businesses engage in discrimination. It was much worse when there were no anti-discrimination laws.
Desert Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 12:17 am
To be honest, I don’t know how anyone believes the crap that employment laws have been solely responsible for the changes in the workforce. This would have happened over time with the free market and social change, without government intervention, maybe even sooner than you suspect. Of course, since lawmakers felt the need to “fix” the system, we’ll never be able to make a comparison, and you can continue to believe the crap you believe.
I have many women and blacks on my staff that I consider to be top-notch employees that I wouldn’t want to do without. Employment laws had nothing to do with my hiring them.
Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 12:44 am
You said the free market would take care of discrimination quickly. Here is exactly what you said:
And that is just plain bullshit. Do you have any idea how long women and other minorities had to wait to get a chance at a fair shake in the job market? The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was only signed into law THIS YEAR.
Now you are backing up and saying it would happen over time so obviously you must know that it wouldn’t have happened quickly. It wouldn’t have and it didn’t until the law made discrimination illegal. It still happens in spite of the law.
Your anecdote doesn’t mean anything in the big picture. The law hasn’t even changed the fact of discrimination in some areas of the country so I don’t believe for one second that the free market would have corrected discrimination.
I know for a FACT that the last job I had I was paid $15,000 a year less than the white male who had the position (who got fired.)
Desert Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 6:21 am
The free market will quickly punish someone identified as a discriminator in today’s social climate. So will the law. Unfortunately identifying all of the offenders happens over time, whether by the free market, or within the legal system. It’s not a contradiction at all.
My argument is that you cannot prove, as well as I, that making employment discrimination illegal has helped the situation any faster than the free market could have on it’s own. We will never know, and you cannot claim as fact otherwise.
The difference is a free market forces an employer to change his bad behaviour if he desires to stay in business. Adding layers and layers of employment law merely pits employer against employee and exacerbates a climate of mistrust.
And yes, my anecdote does mean something in the big picture because there are thousands of small businesses who are strangled by employment laws for no good reason.
And your own anecdotal experience doesn’t necessarily make your claim any more valid.
Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
LOL…yes you did contradict yourself and no the free market doesn’t quickly punish someone who discriminates. You’re a white male, aren’t you?
timesr Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 9:23 am
@Desert Sage, “The current employment laws have done nothing but enrichen lawyers, push companies and small businesses back on their heels, and create a workforce of slackers looking to get rich quick with a lawsuit for some perceived injustice.”
What country do you live in?
California is an “at will” state. That means that an employer can fire an employee for any or no reason except those covered by anti-discrimination laws. In other words, an employer would have to be pretty careless to put himself in a position where he could be sued.
The Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom” says this:
“Labor Freedom 95.1
The United States’ highly flexible labor regulations enhance overall employment and productivity growth. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is low, and dismissing a redundant employee is not burdensome.”
Those are polite words meaning that labor is largely at the mercy of the employer.
Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’m guessing he lives in “white male” country.
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I so disagree with you. While the courts may not have officially ruled marriage a right, the Supreme Court certainly has acknowledged it as such. We’ve had this discussion before I do believe.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@Sage, That is why i said that the court ruled that way in the past. I disagree with that ruling, and believe that the court will actually overturn that decision if it goes all the way again
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
timesr Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
@Barga,
Government supports by law, specific rights and protections to married couples that are not given to couples outside of marriage.
Heres an example:
“Bouley, who is also an Advocate.com columnist, filed suit against Long Beach Memorial Medical Center 11 months after his partner, Andrew Howard, died there in May 2001; Bouley contends that the hospital’s ineffective care was responsible. The hospital’s attorneys responded that Karel did not have the right to sue under California law because he was neither married nor related to Howard. A lower court ruled in the hospital’s favor last year.”
The right to sue is just one issue. Bouley claims that Andrew’s death could have been prevented if the hospital allowed him (Bouley) the sames access as is given a married spouse.
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@timesr,
this is where it gets interesting, as I don’t support any form of governmental marriage. I believe that contracts can be entered into agreements over property, children, assets, etc. but there should be no governmental recognition short of the same of any other contract
that said, i believe (BELIEVE) that a hospital should have every right to set its own policies
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
timesr Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
@Barga, this is where it gets interesting, as I don’t support any form of governmental marriage.
So then, you believe that marriage belongs to religion?
Barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@timesr, if a religion wishes to promote and ordain an useless (in my opinion) ceremony with no legal benifits, they may
Barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Sage Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@Barga, I hope you will send me an invitation to your inevitable wedding.
barga Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@Sage, When I decide to let MKC become MKB (assuming she wants to, and to take the name) you can be invited
i might not support something, but i am not stupid enough to ignore the benifits
barga´s last blog ..OSU from an SEC prospective
Sage Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Sorry….I couldn’t help myself. I must say I am happily married and I think my husband is pretty happy, too. We are a lot alike in some ways which makes life easier.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I was married once. Never again. To me there is nothing but trouble in the so called benefits. Things would have been much better betweem us if we had stayed separate legal entities.
barga Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
@Wizcon, I would be more concerned with protecting my children (if I have Robert jr.)
barga´s last blog ..The Global Crisis: Food, Water and Fuel. Three Fundamental Necessities of Life in Jeopardy
October 15th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
BArga, is this discrimination?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33332436/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity
barga Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@Wizcon, It is, btu that doesn’t mean that it is unconstitutional (i know, under the ruling it is)
barga´s last blog ..The Global Crisis: Food, Water and Fuel. Three Fundamental Necessities of Life in Jeopardy