So gay!!!

[C l u t c H 385]

From a legal perspective the interesting part is that the Judge chose to apply the rational basis standard under the 14th Amendment. This means a couple of things:

1) Homosexuals are not given the same 14th Amendment protections as other protected classes such as racial minorities, women, etc. Laws targetting racial minorities have to be justified by showing that they are "necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Laws targetting women have to be shown to be "substantially related to an important state interest." Laws targetting homosexuals, however, need only be justified by showing they are "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." That is the lowest equal protection hurdle that a government has to clear. In this sense, homosexuals are not protected to the same extent as gay advocates would probably like.

2) Despite the low standard the government had to clear, they still didn't clear it. That's not a good sign if you're a Prop 8 supporter.

Ugh...stop. Took the bar last week. Plus...when applying the rational basis standard isn't the burden supposed to be on the challenger to show it's NOT rationally related to a legitimate purpose. The government doesn't have to prove anything under the rational basis test...I thought.

 

[Beantown]

People who opposed gay marriage are going to look pretty stupid in 20 years. Like those who make up dumb reasons for opposing it, like that they can't have kids so they can't get married or something like that.

-Craig

I am fine with civil unions. Just dont try and lie to me and tell me the relationships are the same.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

 

[chemdude1232]

Suffrage = Grandparents' generation
Civil Rights = Parents' generation
Gay marriage = ours.

Finally some advancement we can claim as our own.

 

[sirkickyass]

Ugh...stop. Took the bar last week. Plus...when applying the rational basis standard isn't the burden supposed to be on the challenger to show it's NOT rationally related to a legitimate purpose. The government doesn't have to prove anything under the rational basis test...I thought.

You're right, but I frequently (as I'm sure you've noticed) simplify a bit when writing about legal issues on jazzfanz.

What you identified actually magnifies my point: To wit, Prop 8 opponents were able to successfully demonstrate that Prop 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and the government couldn't prevent them from doing so. They don't have to do much to defend their law because all the burdens run the other way. The hurdle for the government was extremely low, they basically just had to not lose. They still lost.

 

[Beantown]

I am for gays being able to produce offspring. So I am more progressive than you.

 

[honz]

I am fine with civil unions. Just dont try and lie to me and tell me the relationships are the same.

Other than romance being absent, is a great friendship with another dude any different than having a great relationship with a chick? If two people of the same sex have a romantic connection, I'd say the relationships would be pretty much the same.

 

[Nate505]

The good news for gays is that they get to marry. The bad news for gays is that they get to marry.

 

[TroutBum]

People who opposed gay marriage are going to look pretty stupid in 20 years. Like those who make up dumb reasons for opposing it, like that they can't have kids so they can't get married or something like that.

-Craig

Your stupid sarcasm aside, it is interesting to think about your comment. In 20 years, people will most definately look back and feel stupid -- or their kids will wonder why their parents are such idiots. (just like when I hear my grand dad say 'N****R.)

Thanks for reading

- Trout

 

[UB]

But Jesus Christ specifically said!!!!

You dudes absolutely cannot marry each other. If I have to be celibate while I'm down here, so do you ****.

 

[wangchung12]

Meh

 

[Beantown]

Other than romance being absent, is a great friendship with another dude any different than having a great relationship with a chick? If two people of the same sex have a romantic connection, I'd say the relationships would be pretty much the same.

I am married and if I was married to one of my guy freinds instead of my wife then my life would be entirely different.

-I would not have my daughter nor would having offspring be an option.
-How I have sex would be totally opposite.
-Living with a woman is complete opposite of living with a male roomate
-I would not argue about me watching too much sports
-etc etc etc

Me being married to a man would litereally make my life do a full 180. I dont know how that is a shock or a surprise for people.

 

[UB]

I recommend that you all now watch R Kelly's riveting documentary on the life of a gay man, and his struggles to comes to terms with his fascination with midgets, poo, and condoms.

Just search for:
R. Kelly - "Trapped in The Closet"

 

[TroutBum]

I haven't quite come to terms with my poo fascination.

 

[sirkickyass]

-How I have sex would be totally opposite.

Wait, what?

What does this mean? Would you breathe water? Would you do it in anti-gravity? How can sex have a total opposite?

 

[chemdude1232]

Who are we ("we" being heterosexuals) to declare that two consenting males or two consenting females cannot marry each other? Why is there an elitist posture being placed on that word? I say "elitist" because anti-gay marriage advocates all claim that marriage is strictly to be between a man and a woman. In and of itself, is that not an elitist position to take?

Life is short and "marriage" is just a word. Why not just let homosexuals use it?

I've been to dinner parties where the hosts had two cats. Someone will comment that "they look cute together." The host cracks a joke saying, "Haha yeah, they are married to each other." Everyone laughs. People are more accepting of animals being married to each other than they are of fellow human beings? Wow what generosity. What compassion. What a great display of the vaunted Christian morals.

I would hope that Jesus wouldn't condemn the concept of gay marriage. Bear in mind that the Biblical definition of marriage being between a man and a woman appears in the Old Testament, yet I've heard (not necessarily on these boards, but out and about) that Christ would not tolerate the notion of homosexual marriage. Who are we to assume what He would think? Can you honestly claim you know the thought processes of the Almighty? Last time I checked, that was blasphemy...or at least borderline.

 

[TroutBum]

Wait, what?

What does this mean? Would you breathe water? Would you do it in anti-gravity? How can sex have a total opposite?

Duh, if you think we're the same as fish and/or aliens, then your dumber then you look.

 

[Beantown]

Wait, what?

What does this mean? Would you breathe water? Would you do it in anti-gravity? How can sex have a total opposite?

Really? The sexual organs of a woman and a man are as pretty much as opposite as it gets. If I could draw you some pictures on here I would. I also think your dad should be giving you this talk and not me.

 

[Hopper]

What is it gays want out of this exactly?

1. Death and disability benefits from social security?

2. The ability to file joint tax returns?

3. More food stamps?

4. Dramatic divorce proceedings and alimony?

Those kinda things? Money?

 

[The-Joker]

Really? The sexual organs of a woman and a man are as pretty much as opposite as it gets. If I could draw you some pictures on here I would. I also think your dad should be giving you this talk and not me.

You're 100% wrong here. You claim biology as your witness and you're dead wrong...
All of the sex organs between a man and a woman are homologous.