California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Sorry.

Don't be.

The cult of victimhood still runs rampant in the black community.

That is becasue the effects still run rampant.

And there are plenty of gay Christians.

As there are other types of Christians.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

There are many who say gay and lesbians were like this from birth, but I disagree.

Then I read your signature. "A Kappa Alpha Theta isn't something you become, its something you've always been!"

[Coramoor]

Once again you have a handful of liberal activist judges squashing the vote of some thirty odd million people that settled this already. Wasn't this one of the things the Founders warned us about some 200 years ago?

The left is becoming more fascist by the day.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Once again you have a handful of liberal activist judges squashing the vote of some thirty odd million people that settled this already. Wasn't this one of the things the Founders warned us about some 200 years ago?

The left is becoming more fascist by the day.

FYI:

Originally Posted by jon1856

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."

[jon1856]

^^^^^^LOL-I was in the middle of posting the same thing

[modorney]

Originally Posted by Kevin

(I still don't know whether the wiki was right because the author didn't know that classifications regarding gender don't get strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny).

Kevin, you can join wikipedia and edit the wiki. You have far more knowledge of the law than most of us, and seem to have an objectivity in explaining it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That'll be tough to do. I haven't seen the actual opinion, but I did read the wiki article. If accurate, it seemed to indicate that the California Supreme Court said that gays were a suspect class, on the same level as race (the article incorrectly lumped race and gender together as a "suspect" class, which is wrong since gender is a semi-suspect class). What all of that means is that under California law, laws which discriminate against gays will be given strict scrutiny.

What all that means is that any sort of laws passed discriminating against gays will be unconstitutional in California. I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

If anyone knows the citation for the case, hook me up.

I found that interesting as well; the Supreme Court after Lawrence seems to have kept the question open, on a federal level as to whether the scrutiny afforded to sexuality; I wonder if this decision will get people talking in other courts. I'm not suggesting it will open the door to a change on the federal level, but we'll see.

I didn't read the full 172 pages of the opinion (thanks for the post Mystic), but judging from the brief discussion I read, it seems that the statutory structure in CA made it easier for the court to rule the way it did.

I kind of wish I was still in Constitutional Law, as it would have made for an interesting classroom discussion (my professor talked about this issue quite a bit, and as a former clerk for Brennan, I'm sure he would have had some interesting viewpoints).

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

It seems to me that the only real difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they decide to "sleep" with.

Oooook.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think that what ever you do in your private life is your business. Some people are into S&M, threesomes and bondage - I don't see any of those people at the court house demanding equal rights.

When discussing sexual behaviors, it is important to remember that there are many private things that are considered deviant and/or criminal. Private business has never just been private business. That applies to heterosexual activities and to many behaviors that were considered homosexual.

But let's pretend that private business is private business. The average homosexual would agree with you and isn't into overt or flamboyant sexuality, anyway. They just want to be able to live their lives with the same rights and responsibilities and mind their own business. So why is it okay for heterosexuals' private business to be public (marriage, in this instance) but not for homosexuals' private business (marriage, in this instance).

If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's your business to think that. I used to think that and think that less and less as the years go on. But personal opinions that are majority opinions often translate into policies and laws---and people struggle to find reasons to justify their belief that something should remain illegal.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

So African-Americans are the only minorities? I don't think you quite understand what the word "minority" means. At its root, it's simply about percentages not cultural history.

Minority isn't only about population representation.

It is also about power differentials in terms of majority and minority in power. You can be the majority in population representation but a minority in terms of power (i.e. (South) African Apartheid).

So history and power are also factors in being a minority group. Homosexual representation in the total population has yet to be uncovered. So we can only assume that they are indeed the minority based on a heterocentric culture (including power differentials), and dating, marriage, and natality data.

To partially add to an understanding of sigmadiva's comment, I do not consider homosexuals to be the same type of minority group that racial and ethnic and gender minority groups are. Sexual orientation is not a factor in many contexts whereas race, class, and gender are. Granted, race, class, and gender are often expressed through expressions of sexuality. But a homosexual white male, for instance, will benefit from white male privilege in most contexts before he is oppressed because of his sexual orientation.

[DSTCHAOS]

So much good stuff in this thread. I'm like a kid in a candy store.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because as a Christian, the Bible says so.

As a Christian, I disagree.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

No, AfAm are not the only minorities, but they are the only ones that I feel comfortable speaking about becasue I am one.

You're also a woman. Don't forget that.

I recommend reading Angela Davis, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins because they offer some of the best discussions on the relationship between race and gender (and sexuality and sexual orientation, to an extent).

[Drolefille]

I'm always amused by people who insist that sexual orientation is nothing more than who one chooses to sleep with. Generally if you ask that person to choose to sleep with someone of the opposite sex they react with a rather dramatic no-way-in-hell response. I mean come on, isn't it just a choice?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm always amused by people who insist that sexual orientation is nothing more than who one chooses to sleep with. Generally if you ask that person to choose to sleep with someone of the opposite sex they react with a rather dramatic no-way-in-hell response. I mean come on, isn't it just a choice?

For sigmadiva's post, I think there's a reason that "sleep" was in quotations. So I didn't feel the need to expound on what sexual orientation (as distinct from, yet related to sexuality) entails.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Minority isn't only about population representation.

It is also about power differentials in terms of majority and minority in power. You can be the majority in population representation but a minority in terms of power (i.e. (South) African Apartheid).

So history and power are also factors in being a minority group. Homosexual representation in the total population has yet to be uncovered. So we can only assume that they are indeed the minority based on a heterocentric culture (including power differentials), and dating, marriage, and natality data.

Yes. I agree. I phrased it the way I did for brevity but I do realize that it is more than that.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Oooook.

Umm, I guess you missed the part where I told Leslie Anne that that was a joke, albeit a bad one.

When discussing sexual behaviors, it is important to remember that there are many private things that are considered deviant and/or criminal. Private business has never just been private business. That applies to heterosexual activities and to many behaviors that were considered homosexual.

I do realize that. I was not going to muddy the waters of this conversation with all of the variants on sexual behaviors. Just trying to keep it simple.

So why is it okay for heterosexuals' private business to be public (marriage, in this instance) but not for homosexuals' private business (marriage, in this instance).

You answered this in your response below - the majority opinion is that the private business of a heterosexual couple can be "public". Afterall, many did not and some do not consider a marriage to be complete until it has been consumated. Preferably with proof.

If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's your business to think that. I used to think that and think that less and less as the years go on. But personal opinions that are majority opinions often translate into policies and laws---and people struggle to find reasons to justify their belief that something should remain illegal.

Or legal too.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

To partially add to an understanding of sigmadiva's comment, I do not consider homosexuals to be the same type of minority group that racial and ethnic and gender minority groups are. Sexual orientation is not a factor in many contexts whereas race, class, and gender are. Granted, race, class, and gender are often expressed through expressions of sexuality. But a homosexual white male, for instance, will benefit from white male privilege in most contexts before he is oppressed because of his sexual orientation.

Yes, this is what I mean.