No, because it was specifically written to expire. This was them telling people it was okay, and then yanking it out from under them.
Also you apparently do not know what a right is. Merely allowing someone to do something is not granting a right to do it. It could still be a privilege. For it to be a right, it has to be based on what is morally right.
I doubt you will find many people that say it is immoral to not get an $8k tax credit.
Ok, the loopholes that were closed in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Is that better?
I know what a “right” is. Here’s one definition, from Findlaw’s legal dictionary:
Here’s “privilege”
I also doubt that. But rights are a creature of law, not of morality.
I think that in Loving, SCOTUS recognized marriage as being a natural right - or rather, something required for man’s ‘pursuit of happiness’. There is no god-given right to marriage, I suppose, but there’s a supposed god-given right to a ‘pursuit of happiness’, and it’s only logical to consider cohabitation part of that pursuit? surely we’ve come a long way in our line of thinking. marriage and sex isn’t just for reproduction.
finally, denying marriage to one group clearly denies the rights afforded to marriage. that, imo, is the strongest argument. if there weren’t so many legal benefits to marriage, i think the marriage equality case would be weaker. so i agree, re: EP.
I respectfully disagree. 
edit: while i think all rights deriving from ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are generally moral rights, the use of the word ‘moral’ is so subjective that i can’t agree with the statement.
My meaning is that it is impossible for something to be considered a right if no one is arguing that its absence would be be wrong. And I am really having a hard time coming up with an exception.
It’s not an inclusive definition, but an exclusive one. Finding things that are argued as wrong that you would not consider a right does not counter my premise. Only finding something you consider a right that no one considers would be wrong if removed.
People don’t talk about a right to avoid taxes or to pay less on them. The argument I was replying to is attempting reductio ad absurdum, but is failing by using a technical definition of right that few people actually use.
There is a fundamental difference between the so-called “right” to not pay something on your taxes and the right to marriage. The ability to marry is not something the government grants, but something it upholds. Just like everything else most people consider rights.
The court uses different words, like “protected class” and “rational basis”, but they recognize this, too. The original decision that required Prop 8 wasn’t based on the text of the California Constitution alone, but on this very idea of what the public actually deemed to be right.
I showed a version of this* to my students a couple of years ago. After, they had to talk with their table groups and come up with questions. One (pretty liberal) girl wrote, “How is abortion a right?” I put it up on the board and we spent the next day and a half discussing it.
This comes from the same class where (most) felt flag-burning wasn’t a right (they thought it was violent), and that Miranda Rights were sometimes an over-extension of the 4th and 5th Amendments. But most were Obama fans or identified as ‘Democrat’ and many had marched for immigrants rights at one time or another. And almost all thought that SSM was a right. EVERYONE voted that ‘healthcare’, when available, was a universal right.
*I made it. You don’t have to view the whole thing. Short version: a picture history of the evolution of ‘rights’ in the U.S. It was done for a ESL Civics class. Sorry, it goes on a loop in this version, so you can mute the flobots if you like.
Edit: FUCK! i just deleted the song and i can’t fix it. 
well, whatever. i’m rather miffed atm.
First of all, it’s not a “technical definition of right that few people actually use”. You know the people who actually use my definition? Lawyers, when they’re talking about the law, which they’re doing. If you’re making a legal argument, you use the legal definition. Besides, the argument you’re replying to doesn’t base itself on a question of “rights” at all. I was responding to this possible rationale by the court, as expressed by Strassia
That doesn’t limit itself to what you’d call “rights” and I’d call, I dunno, “human rights” or something. In fact, that argument concedes that marriage isn’t a general human right because it allows for the banning of gay marriages in those states that never had them.
In short, I’m not sure you’re understanding exactly my argument or what I’m attempting to argue against, and I don’t think in this context, the rights language is helpful.
Perhaps this is a discussion about positive v. negative rights or wording?
Consider the framing:
**Negative:**Gays should be allowed to marry each other.
v.
**Positive:**The government should grant gays the right to marry each other.
One implies that, unless otherwise stated, gays should be able to marry each other.
The second implies that the government need to take action to grant a right (or liberty).
Using this kind of thinking, the right to marry is a given, where as same sex marriage is an added right.
What Strassia (I think) was talking about is the idea that the government should not take away a right once it has been granted. This has always been rather unpopular - see McCarthyism or the Patriot Act.
Marriage has always been regulated, but I don’t think has ever been ‘granted’. I mean, marriage and cohabitation agreements are as old as humanity. Cohabitation is really the ‘marriage’ of our natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Both of those are framed as positives.
(wrong thread)
From what I remember of catholic theology from long-ago parochial school: Marriage is a sacrament done by the celebrants themselves – they marry each other. The priest & congregation are present only as witnesses.
Of course, that doesn’t apply to same-sex marriages. At least under the current church hierarchy. (It used to, a few hundred years ago.)
You realize you just bumped a 2 month old thread to add that? I kinda came in looking for an update, not some opinion unrelated to the topic.
You disappoint me.
To jump to t-bonham’s defense, he didn’t bump the thread. Bricker did, when he had this thread open to get information for a new thread he was working on, and which he accidentally started as a post in this thread instead of opening his new one. The mods. apparently deleted his “oops, wrong thread” post.
I see. Sorry t-bonham. I’ll direct my scowl in Bricker’s direction.
Update:
The 9th Circuit Court ruled today that Prop 8, the voter-approved law banning gay marriage in California, is unconstitutional. Not only that, the judges ruled that the former Judge Vaughn Walker, who revealed that he was gay after his decision that the law was unconstitutional, was not found to be biased.
Not only that, according to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker website, the 9th Circuit even said the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law.
If you’ll recall, there was some debate on whether or not the proponents could actually challenge the law itself, and a possible backdoor (heh heh) way to void Prop 8 was simply not to rule on the constitutionality of the law itself, but whether or not the law could even be challenged by the plaintiffs. By ruling that they did have standing, the 9th Circuit didn’t mince words and allow gay marriage on a loophole, but rather ruled on gay marriage itself, that it was constitutional, setting up a Supreme Court challenge that will likely determine the outcome of gay marriage for the entire country! :eek::eek::eek: (well, I’m no lawyer so maybe someone else can answer this for me: would the Supreme Court simply rule if it was constitutional for the state to have Prop 8 or would their decision affect the gay marriage legality in the whole country?)
So, Prop 8 and gay marriage in an election year. I kind of wish it wasn’t, because this is a rallying issue for the right wing extremists, but ultimately it had to be decided sooner or later. Once the Supremes accept the case, and I’m not sure why they wouldn’t, I hope they decide in favor of civil rights and freedom.
Looks like the decision was tailored to only affect California. From Update 5 and 7 on the bottom of the page:
Update 5:
Update 7:
I’m no lawyer either, but my understanding is that the basis under which Prop 8 would be found to be unconstitutional would make it really hard for CA (or any other state) to write a law that somehow circumvented the constitutionality issue. So even though their ruling might be directed at Prop 8, indirectly, it would likely impact the entire country.
My understanding may be shit, but that’s what it is at the moment.
Check this out. It was 54 minutes old when I spotted it:
Yes, I know that elsewhere there have been ohter state-wide rulings that a SSMs must be marriages equal in law to heterosexual ones for civil rights of all to be respected.
Heck I live in Upstate New York!
The explanatory text here is interesting. Interpretations of civil rights can only be “ratched up” and never down, it seems. The unique situation in California is that gays seeking SSMs had already known them origimally, and then came Proposition 8.
In the statement by Judge Reinhardt, the court said, uh-uh. No way can something considered a civil right that has been already enacted (by legislation?) be yanked away from a minority group.
This particular ruling would then have no effect on other state processes. (I’m pretty sure.)
Your thoughts? - TFO
ETA: Prop 8 had an earlier version, in Prop. 22, as I have just read.
What isn’t quite clear to me is - who gets to decide when and where same sex marriages can be performed in California again?
points to other thread
(Hey, I’ve always wanted to backseat moderate.)