CA Supreme court chickens out

[Jayman01]

Those seven bitches should be so lucky. Hell no I ain't fleeing, I am raising $$ to buy the army we need to destroy the infidels. They never should have fucked with a drag queen. First rule of warfare, NEVER leave your enemy alive in your wake. And this time they left 36,000 of us. Big mistake! Really Big Mistake!

You go Marky Mark. Get some

 

[Jayman01]

Marky It is so nice to have you back. I get very passionate where my rights are concerned Yank You and I agree But have you looked at the case of Lt Choi who came out on Rachel Maddow's show and what happened then ? There is a deadly silence form the White house and I heard a promise to end DADT Jayman knows much more than I what that would take but a statement might have been a nice gesture

The DADT was a compromise because congress refused to modify the UCMJ. Which makes committing homosexual acts while serving in the US armed forces a criminal act. And it punishible in all cases under the catch all articles133/134 Conduct Unbecoming.

§ 933. Art. 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Article 133— Conduct unbecoming an officer
and gentleman
c. Explanation. This paragraph is based on paragraph 212 of
MCM, 1969 (Rev.). See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)
(constitutionality of Article 133). For a discussion of Article 133,
see United States v. Giordano, 15 U.S.C.M.A. 163, 35 C.M.R.
135 (1964); Nelson, Conduct Expected of an Officer and a Gentleman:
Ambiguity, 12 A.F.JAG L.Rev. 124 (Spring 1970). As to
subparagraph (1), see 1 U.S.C. § 1; Pub.L. No. 94–106, § 803, 89
Stat. 537–38 (Oct. 7, 1975). e. Maximum punishment. A maximum punishment is established for the first time in order to provide guidance and uniformity for
Article 133 offenses. f. Sample specifications. Some sample specifications for Article
133 in MCM, 1969 (Rev.) were deleted solely to economize on
space.

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

§ 934. Art. 134. General article

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court - martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Article 134— (Indecent acts with another)
c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United
States v. Holland, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 444, 31 C.M.R. 30 (1961);
United States v. Gaskin, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 419, 31 C.M.R. 5 (1962);
United States v. Sanchez, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 216, 29 C.M.R. 32
(1960); United States v. Johnson, 4 M.J. 770 (A.C.M.R. 1978).
“Lewd” and “lascivious” have been deleted as they are synonymous
with “indecent.” See id.


C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation eitherwith another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age.Depending upon the facts of the particular case at hand, two elements in aggravation may beadded to the requisite elements of the crime. One such element is added when the act is done with achild under the age of 16 years, and the other element is added when the act is done by force and withoutthe consent of the other person.It should be noted that the offense of sodomy may be committed between a husband andwife. Such cases, however, would be difficult to prosecute. Coltner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1968). In practical terms, it would be difficult to successfully argue that a governmental purpose forprohibiting consensual sodomy within a marriage outweighs the constitutional right to marital privacy.However, Congress has seen fit not to exempt consensual sodomy committed by husband and wife.D. Indecent Assault (Article 134, UCMJ, para 63). The offense of indecent assault consists ofthree basic elements:1. That the accused assaulted a certain person not the spouse of the accused in a certainmanner;2. That the acts were done with the intent of gratifying the lust or sexual desires of theaccused; and3. That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of goodorder and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.Indecent assault is a nonconsensual offense.QUESTION: DOES THE INITIAL ASSAULT ITSELF NEED TO BE INDECENT?ANSWER: NO. THE REQUISITE ASSAULT OR BATTERY DOES NOT NEED TO BEINHERENTLY INDECENT, LEWD, OR LASCIVIOUS (FOR EXAMPLE, CHOKING A VICTIMAND PUSHING HERMP10191-22

There are more articles however these are the ones I was able to get to readily.

 

[canada]

CA Supreme Court Had No Choice

My comments are not meant to say I agree that the proposition pased by the CA voters was right. The proposition was in effect an ammendment to the CA constitution. How could the CA supreme court rule that the the amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional. That makes no sense.

The choices as I see them are as follows:

1. Get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the CA proposition is in violation of the U.S. constitution.

2. Get the CA voters to overturn the vote on banning same sex marriages.

We need to get things changed, but the CA Supreme Courts hands were tied.

 

[Jayman01]

My comments are not meant to say I agree that the proposition pased by the CA voters was right. The proposition was in effect an ammendment to the CA constitution. How could the CA supreme court rule that the the amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional. That makes no sense.

The choices as I see them are as follows:

1. Get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the CA proposition is in violation of the U.S. constitution.

2. Get the CA voters to overturn the vote on banning same sex marriages.

We need to get things changed, but the CA Supreme Courts hands were tied.

I agree. However; the problem is without an making an amendments to our US Constitution we could loose and set a legal precedence for all lower courts to follow. Got to get our ducks in a row first.

 

[tightywhitieboy]

i have to say this issue should be really low on the federal governments priority list and i'm glad that it is. there are far more important issues in this country - all of which affect us too. if or when we can get the big stuff accomplished, the feds can weigh in on gay marriage.

personally, i think granting civil unions is a perfect compromise. who cares about the name if it is the same thing? let's not argue over words if we're getting the exact same thing. and i belive marriage is a religious institution anyway and therefore the government shouldn't acknowledge any marriage. everyone, gay or straight, should only be able to have a civil union recognized by the government.

and i have to wonder..... at what point in our country's history did marriage get classified as a fundamental human "right"?

 

[tightywhitieboy]

My comments are not meant to say I agree that the proposition pased by the CA voters was right. The proposition was in effect an ammendment to the CA constitution. How could the CA supreme court rule that the the amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional. That makes no sense.

The choices as I see them are as follows:

1. Get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the CA proposition is in violation of the U.S. constitution.

2. Get the CA voters to overturn the vote on banning same sex marriages.

We need to get things changed, but the CA Supreme Courts hands were tied.

The CA prop doesn't actually violate the US constitution. Therefore, the #2 is the only viable option.

 

[tucsonjayce]

The CA prop doesn't actually violate the US constitution. Therefore, the #2 is the only viable option.

I can see that, however what about the separate but equal debate? Didn't work for education, why would it work for recognition of family units? And does the CA civil union grant ALL the same rights as marriage. If there is just one thing left out then this ruling may be faulty.

I think the next challenge, which was not addressed in this case in CA is if "marriage" is reserved for str8 couples because of "tradition" and/or religious beliefs, then should the state only recognize civil unions for all and leave the marriage part to the churches (Separation of Church and State)?

Or if California does not recognize a marriage from Massachussetts, that is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Particularly when 18,000 marriages are valid in CA.

The other thing to look at is if we can get NY in line, then we regain momentum.

Be well Brothers,

Jayce

 

[Jayman01]

I can see that, however what about the separate but equal debate? Didn't work for education, why would it work for recognition of family units? And does the CA civil union grant ALL the same rights as marriage. If there is just one thing left out then this ruling may be faulty.

I think the next challenge, which was not addressed in this case in CA is if "marriage" is reserved for str8 couples because of "tradition" and/or religious beliefs, then should the state only recognize civil unions for all and leave the marriage part to the churches (Separation of Church and State)?

Or if California does not recognize a marriage from Massachussetts, that is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Particularly when 18,000 marriages are valid in CA.

The other thing to look at is if we can get NY in line, then we regain momentum.

Be well Brothers,

Jayce

Jayce - you make valid point (if California does not recognize a marriage from Massachussetts, that is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Particularly when 18,000 marriages are valid in CA.)


Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Here is the web link below:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article4

If only the 14th ammendment was much clearer.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

 

[Jayman01]

i have to say this issue should be really low on the federal governments priority list and i'm glad that it is. there are far more important issues in this country - all of which affect us too. if or when we can get the big stuff accomplished, the feds can weigh in on gay marriage.

personally, i think granting civil unions is a perfect compromise. who cares about the name if it is the same thing? let's not argue over words if we're getting the exact same thing. and i belive marriage is a religious institution anyway and therefore the government shouldn't acknowledge any marriage. everyone, gay or straight, should only be able to have a civil union recognized by the government.

and i have to wonder..... at what point in our country's history did marriage get classified as a fundamental human "right"?

I think it was the Bush Administration that proposed marriage as a fundamental right. Also, both the Church and the Gov't have the right to perform marriages. However; I do not believe it is spelled out directly as a constitutional right. I do see your point here. However; I disagree. This is the best time to do it. The country is focused on the war a broad, jobs, and the economy. While the majority are confused with the state of the union and they have very little faith in government is the best time to slide it right under their noses.

There are millions of family members out there that would rather that their son's or daughter's life not be in danger in Iraq or Afghanistan. When they realize that their children are fighting for our freedoms and rights as Americans and we are trying to bring democracy to the free world. Many are asking themselves why Gay and Lesbians are being excluded if they want their rights. I say ride the wave baby... Play down the economic impact of it...

 

[tightywhitieboy]

I can see that, however what about the separate but equal debate? Didn't work for education, why would it work for recognition of family units? And does the CA civil union grant ALL the same rights as marriage. If there is just one thing left out then this ruling may be faulty.

I think the next challenge, which was not addressed in this case in CA is if "marriage" is reserved for str8 couples because of "tradition" and/or religious beliefs, then should the state only recognize civil unions for all and leave the marriage part to the churches (Separation of Church and State)?

Or if California does not recognize a marriage from Massachussetts, that is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Particularly when 18,000 marriages are valid in CA.

The other thing to look at is if we can get NY in line, then we regain momentum.

Be well Brothers,

Jayce

separate but equal didn't work in the case of black people before the civil rights act because it wasn't actually equal. plus it was much more than just education and it was physical separation. if civil unions provide all the same rights as marriage, then the only difference is the words.

and yes, i think the government should only recognize civil unions for all couples. marriage should be in church as it is a religious institution.

 

[tightywhitieboy]

I think it was the Bush Administration that proposed marriage as a fundamental right. Also, both the Church and the Gov't have the right to perform marriages. However; I do not believe it is spelled out directly as a constitutional right. I do see your point here. However; I disagree. This is the best time to do it. The country is focused on the war a broad, jobs, and the economy. While the majority are confused with the state of the union and they have very little faith in government is the best time to slide it right under their noses.

There are millions of family members out there that would rather that their son's or daughter's life not be in danger in Iraq or Afghanistan. When they realize that their children are fighting for our freedoms and rights as Americans and we are trying to bring democracy to the free world. Many are asking themselves why Gay and Lesbians are being excluded if they want their rights. I say ride the wave baby... Play down the economic impact of it...

i'm not sure what to say to this. your idea of sliding it under people's noses doesn't sit well with me. not that i don't see some logic there, but.... i mean the civil rights movement was actually a very long process beginning with the end of slavery and continued until the civil rights act was passed. people of all races fought hard for that. and black people endured such hardships and adversity to finally be granted freedom. our only issue is having the state recognize our partnerships and we want it to come easy? during a time of war, an economic crisis, while we're all active in destroying the very planet we need for all human beings to survive? just doesn't seem like the best choice of priorities.

i say leave the federal government out of it. act the issue state by state. the fact of the matter is that eventually the government will recognize gay marriage (regardless of what it is called) and eventually it will be so common and frequent no one will even care. the best way to accomplish is by state and by requesting civil unions.

then we can all get hitched and subsequently divorced like the rest of americans. =)

 

[Jayman01]

i'm not sure what to say to this. your idea of sliding it under people's noses doesn't sit well with me. not that i don't see some logic there, but.... i mean the civil rights movement was actually a very long process beginning with the end of slavery and continued until the civil rights act was passed. people of all races fought hard for that. and black people endured such hardships and adversity to finally be granted freedom. our only issue is having the state recognize our partnerships and we want it to come easy? during a time of war, an economic crisis, while we're all active in destroying the very planet we need for all human beings to survive? just doesn't seem like the best choice of priorities.

i say leave the federal government out of it. act the issue state by state. the fact of the matter is that eventually the government will recognize gay marriage (regardless of what it is called) and eventually it will be so common and frequent no one will even care. the best way to accomplish is by state and by requesting civil unions.

then we can all get hitched and subsequently divorced like the rest of americans. =)

I know exactly what you are saying. However; gays were married under every religion prior to the Spanish inquisition. Once the Spanish inquisition started; GLBT people have been repressed, victims of psychological experiments, victims genetic experiments, locked up and incarcerated for just being GLBT, drugged and told they are mentally ill because they are GLBT, accused of bringing the plague of AIDS and Hepatitis upon the world, and not to mention burned just to keep soldiers warm and fuel furnaces in the cold winters of Nazi Germany. In almost all parts of society gays are on the bottom of the list and rarely seen as equals in the human race. I agree with you the best way is to go state by state. However; accepting civil unions is not a reasonable compromise. We are all equal in God's eyes. No man or woman rates to be a judge to over turn these rights. I am not a huge fan of Gay pride parades and rarely participate beyond helping put educational programs together. However; on this issue I will never bow. I married two gay couples in the state of NY last year. I married one gay couple in PA two years ago. As I told the couples there is a division between Church and State. The State has no authority to nullify any marriage in which I performed within their state. The Church recognized the marriage as legal and the State has no jurisdiction over Church dogma, doctrine, or theological practices. They don't like hearing that when you tell it to them. The only thing the State has been able to say is we do not recognize the marriage. As I said, who is the state to over turn the holy union of marriage when it was blessed by God? In other words I agree the world is in Chaos. And I know there would be a huge economic impact with benefits and everything. I do agree that ultimately the Federal Gov't will need to concede. Don't believe for a moment that gays have not endured their fair share of in human brutality to get to where we are today. I just think if we are going to fix the world as a whole and fight for freedom and people's rights abroad we should at least acknowledge our own rights right here at home.

On this point we may need to agree to disagree. Bless your heart tightywhitieboy, I love you. Thank you for the spirited debate. I am dying to see how the other members weigh in on this.

 

[LesterM]

I feel until full aknowledgement of our rights happens we will always be second class citizens. Yes Tighty straight people have the "RIGHT" to marry and GLBT people as full citizens of the United States need to be granted the same rights I agree that there are many pressing issues facing us on personal and global issues but this is one of them. I hope that when you have a partner and god forbid that partner should be in the hospital you are not denied the right to visit them. That is only the tip of the iceberg,

 

[Markymark]

I feel until full aknowledgement of our rights happens we will always be second class citizens. Yes Tighty straight people have the "RIGHT" to marry and GLBT people as full citizens of the United States need to be granted the same rights I agree that there are many pressing issues facing us on personal and global issues but this is one of them. I hope that when you have a partner and god forbid that partner should be in the hospital you are not denied the right to visit them. That is only the tip of the iceberg,

Excellent point lester, . Tighty, another area of inequality is in medical decision making. Fortuneately, if Carl or I get sick, each has the right to make medical/legal decisions on behalf of the other, BECAUSE we are married, no entity can refuse us. As domestic partners, some of those rights can be challenged, causing delays, irritation, frustration,....well, you get the picture. In addition, inheritances can be legally challenged, even if there is a stipulated will, and the general concensus is, "well, they weren't really married, so why does he/she get everything? What about us?" And don't get me started on the issue of survivor benefits and insurance.

Even though Carl andI have the cerificate to prove it, I have already been told by some ignorant people that " They know prop 8 nullified my marriage, so stop saying your married." There is a whole lot of prejudice out there still aimed our direction. Yeah, we have a ticket for the bus ride, but they're still making us sit in the back seat.

With Respect, I am,

 

[Jayman01]

Thanks Lester and MarkyMark those are very good point too. Thank you for bringing them to light.

 

[tampa24]

I feel until full aknowledgement of our rights happens we will always be second class citizens. Yes Tighty straight people have the "RIGHT" to marry and GLBT people as full citizens of the United States need to be granted the same rights I agree that there are many pressing issues facing us on personal and global issues but this is one of them. I hope that when you have a partner and god forbid that partner should be in the hospital you are not denied the right to visit them. That is only the tip of the iceberg,

Good points Lester and Marky,

I'm actually amazed that gay marriage is as close to being within our reach as it is. As I've said it is almost a foregone conclusion at this point. The more the opposition fights it the more ground they lose because the tide of public opinion is gradually moving our way. Is it moving as quickly as I'd like? Of course not! But I can't help but be optimistic about the near and long term future. Does that mean that it will be easy and that we can become complacent and wait for it to happen? Again no. As Marky is so valiantly charging ahead in his own home state it becomes obvious that it will take time, work, money, patience and perseverance but we will get there.

I must admit that 5 or 6 years ago I was a doubter on the issue of gay marriage. Not that I was opposed to it at all. I just worried that we would create a backlash against us that could actually set us back years in the level of public acceptance that we had already achieved.

I came out in the mid 80's when the AIDS crisis was at its peak. It created a backlash for us then that took a decade to overcome. When I think back to when serious people, some of whom were politicians and others who were influential televangelists and were demonizing us on a regular basis, I have to cringe. They were seriously trying to get public opinion in favor of a "Gay quarantine". They wanted to ship us off to islands like the old leper colonies where supposedly we would wallow and die of AIDS and our own moral indecency.

To think that only 20 years later we are talking about gay marriage being legal in a few states already I can't help but be pleased. Those a decade ago or less who advocated a more incremental and piecemeal approach to gay rights were wrong. If we go for the top prize above all then the other rights (partner insurance, death benefits, hospital visitation, bequeathing of estates, medical decisions by partners) will have to fall into place. I agree with Tighty that going state by state seems the best way to go under the current circumstances. However I don't think we should settle for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Those may still be useful for common law type couples who choose not to marry for their own reasons. But all gay couples who want to marry should have the right to marriage.

 

[tucsonjayce]

Breaking news. The Nevada legislature has overridden the Governor's veto on a domestic partnership bill that extends "most" of the benefits of marriage to both str8 and gay couples.

While I would prefer marriage be available, the more acceptance we can obtain, the better. Sooner or later most will see that if marriage is offered in some places and partnership in others, one standard will need to be applied. That standard should be the higher of the two - marriage.

Keep the ball rolling brothers, there is hope on the horizon.

Jayce

 

[tampa24]

Breaking news. The Nevada legislature has overridden the Governor's veto on a domestic partnership bill that extends "most" of the benefits of marriage to both str8 and gay couples.

While I would prefer marriage be available, the more acceptance we can obtain, the better. Sooner or later most will see that if marriage is offered in some places and partnership in others, one standard will need to be applied. That standard should be the higher of the two - marriage.

Keep the ball rolling brothers, there is hope on the horizon.

Jayce

What great news Jayce. Thanks for sharing that with us!

 

[gwr19569424]

Jayce, what the Nevada Legislature done, our Governor signed into law a few weeks ago, calling it the Everything But Marriage bill. The opposition has a certain amount of time to get signatures to bring the signed law by the Governor on the ballot in November for public vote. If am not mistaking, I think they have until the end of June to get the required number of "valid" signatures.
I am hoping and praying that they do not get the required number of valid signatures so that this does not have to go to the voters in November. If they don't get the required number of valid signatures (the opposition), then it becomes permanent law.
From what I understand, the opposition was given such a short time to get signatures, that they themselves don't feel they will get what the need.
Gary

 

[tampa24]

From what I understand, the opposition was given such a short time to get signatures, that they themselves don't feel they will get what the need.
Gary

Let's hope they don't!