Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

[LittleFuzzy]

I put those precedents in the category of "Equality".

You shouldn't have. Lawrence wasn't decided as an equality case. The 14th got mentioned but it was for incorporation, for the extension of due process requirements to the states. And even it were, from a judicial standpoint it is meaningless to use such broad categories in the first place. Law is precise, semantic, and fiddly, which is why Lawrence is only a tangental precedent and not something which bore directly on the issue at hand. As for all those others. . . things like the DSM, or advances in inferility treatments, are not legal at all. They're completely different fields and cannot create nor represent any kind of judicial precedent. You can't lump them in with anything

History proves that definitions of "Equality" changes over time

It does, which is why it's irritating that the majority never elucidated the legal "test" they were using and expected other courts to use.

Fuzzy, your analyses are confusing to me. I'd think you'd be happy that (as a gay man) you don't have to fight for the 'right' to marry the one you love, or that your marriage would be recognized in all 50 states.

I'm talking about process and mechanics, things you never care about. I'll take the end-result here, but I'll still talk about flaws and errors made along the way. You're content to be a stopped clock, someone who is only right rarely and then by coincidence. Which is the fundamental problem with your discussions with everyone on here, you don't care how an answer or conclusion is reached so long as it's the one you [b]want[b] to reach, heedless of even if it is a correct one or not so long as it's the one that suits you.

[GGT]

You shouldn't have. Lawrence wasn't decided as an equality case. The 14th got mentioned but it was for incorporation, for the extension of due process requirements to the states. And even it were, from a judicial standpoint it is meaningless to use such broad categories in the first place. Law is precise, semantic, and fiddly, which is why Lawrence is only a tangental precedent and not something which bore directly on the issue at hand. As for all those others. . . things like the DSM, or advances in inferility treatments, are not legal at all. They're completely different fields and cannot create nor represent any kind of judicial precedent. You can't lump them in with anything

But all sorts of cultural, social, and religious 'tangents' were lumped into legal definitions of marriage....so those things are not meaningless. Some of the arguments against marriage equality were based on "traditional" definitions of family (ie religious) and whether same-sex couples could raise healthy children. Which is poppycock, of course, since hetero couples don't have a procreation litmus test for marriage, let alone divorce or remarriage.

It does, which is why it's irritating that the majority never elucidated the legal "test" they were using and expected other courts to use.

Again, I thought the legal "test" was clear, and consistent with other legal rulings about marriage as it's evolved over time -- women as 'legal equals' with the same due process as men. The ability to file for divorce, or charge a husband with domestic abuse, or take birth control, or even have children 'out of wedlock' all have a legal/judicial history and precedents.

I'm talking about process and mechanics, things you never care about. I'll take the end-result here, but I'll still talk about flaws and errors made along the way. You're content to be a stopped clock, someone who is only right rarely and then by coincidence. Which is the fundamental problem with your discussions with everyone on here, you don't care how an answer or conclusion is reached so long as it's the one you [b]want[b] to reach, heedless of even if it is a correct one or not so long as it's the one that suits you.

Oh, I care about process and mechanics....especially since politicians want to write discriminatory language in their state constitutions, or have voter referendums, making certain people a 2nd class status under the law. I think many original flaws and errors were made a long time ago, with DODT and DOMA and Prop 8 just recent examples of the same mistaken mindset.

Yeah, I like the SCOTUS ruling about marriage equality, but it's still perfectly legal in several states to fire (or not hire) people based on their sexual orientation. Why is that?

Fuzzy, where's the legal "test" that legitimizes treating LGBT people differently than anyone else under the law? It's good to focus on legal process and procedure....but when it's being used by politically-motivated legislators, with an ideology of "righteous exclusion", FFS call it what it is! Delaying rights = denying rights.