FIGHT IT NOW !!!!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jaysays on December 24, 2008 at 8:59am

There's a really great article at http://tinyurl.com/7mtel3 explaining Due Process, Equal Protection and the Sex Discrimination Theory. One interesting tid-bit from it states:

"Moreover, in interpreting Title VII - not the Constitution - the Court has repeatedly endorsed the "but for" approach. In Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, the Court held that sex discrimination occurs whenever an employee is treated "in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different." The Court has made similar holdings in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, UAW v. Johnson Controls, and City of Los Angeles v. Manhart."

I've always loved the "but for" argument. It's applicable in a lot of cases and gets a lot of discussion at the office.

At any rate, one thing I think people have missed, which you touched on, is the religious discrimination factor. Perhaps you are a member of a church that will perform the ceremony, but the ceremony can't be legally recognized, does that constitute religious discrimination?

Interestingly enough, a self-officiating heterosexual couple was able to obtain a marriage license after claiming the County was discriminating against them based upon their religious beliefs because they were not going to be married by a "third-party" (Quaker style). That article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6u8947.

It would seem, from a legal standpoint, that both arguments could prevail, the strongest likely being the discrimination based upon religious belief.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Genia Stevens on December 24, 2008 at 10:37am

Thanks to both of you (Jaysays and dudess). The wheels are now spinnin' in my head.



jaysays said:

There's a really great article at http://tinyurl.com/7mtel3 explaining Due Process, Equal Protection and the Sex Discrimination Theory. One interesting tid-bit from it states:

"Moreover, in interpreting Title VII - not the Constitution - the Court has repeatedly endorsed the "but for" approach. In Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, the Court held that sex discrimination occurs whenever an employee is treated "in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different." The Court has made similar holdings in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, UAW v. Johnson Controls, and City of Los Angeles v. Manhart."

I've always loved the "but for" argument. It's applicable in a lot of cases and gets a lot of discussion at the office.

At any rate, one thing I think people have missed, which you touched on, is the religious discrimination factor. Perhaps you are a member of a church that will perform the ceremony, but the ceremony can't be legally recognized, does that constitute religious discrimination?

Interestingly enough, a self-officiating heterosexual couple was able to obtain a marriage license after claiming the County was discriminating against them based upon their religious beliefs because they were not going to be married by a "third-party" (Quaker style). That article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6u8947.

It would seem, from a legal standpoint, that both arguments could prevail, the strongest likely being the discrimination based upon religious belief.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dudess on December 26, 2008 at 4:59am

they were not going to be married by a "third-party" (Quaker style). That article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6u8947 (thank you for posting those dear)

this is extremely similar to my point that I have my own religion (I call it "religion of one")
and just because it has a membership of one person, doesn't make it any less valid than the more traditional religions.
people may share some of my beliefs, but it's impossible for anyone to believe exactly the same, and so by definition, it could only ever be a membership of one.
but that doesn't mean it's not a valid religion.

it seems as tho the hypocrits don't mind religious discrimination, as long as it's in their favour..
but it's still religious discrimination, pure and simple.

their next step for them, would be to brush off their frivolous "argument" that it undermines the family values (or whatever rot it is).. but that should be able to be put to rest by requiring some sort of proof to those allegations.
and if not, once they do that, we can analize and refute the auxilary arguments that are hiding the blatant religious discrimination ones

..but if there were mass filings of religious discrimination complaints, it would help those trying to fight it by giving weight to their arguments that it's unconstitutional to disallow same-sex marriages (and criminal to negate the ones already performed).

so again I say "DO IT NOW !!!"

anyone can file (gay, straight, married, single, etc)..
and there's no limit to how many you can file
we need to strike while the iron's hot.

I DARE YOU..

I bet a dollar each (to the first ten californians), that you aren't brave enough to file a religious discrimination suit with the office of civil rights, based on your right to marry someone of your sex has been violated.

any takers ??

:)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dudess on December 26, 2008 at 5:02am

<3
here are some addresses, etc to get started with:


Ron Prentice, chairman of the executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com
and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund
Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com
Contact: Andy Pugno, 916-608-3065

protectMarriage.com
915 L st, suite C-259
sacramento, ca 95814
916 446-2956

info@protectmarriage.com
or call (916) 446-5031

===============
Kenneth W. Starr
kstarr@kirkland.com

Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Phone: +1 213-680-8440
Fax: +1 213-680-8500

Email Dean Starr at Ken.Starr@pepperdine.edu
Call Dean Starr at 310.506.4621

Pepperdine University
24255 Pacific Coast Highway,
Malibu, CA 90263
===========

(I'm not sure if they've done anything recently that can be complained about, but from what I've seen of their website, they're very creepy and need to be confronted)

American Family Association

AFA State Affiliates: State Directors
AFA California
Scott Lively
5150 Sunrise Blvd.
Suite H-4
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Phone: 916-965-8925
Fax: 916-676-1060
========
Campaign for California Families

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812
PHONE NUMBER: (916) 760-4360


====================
Ron Prentice of the California Family Council

We welcome your comments.

So. California Office
P.O. Box 20012
Riverside, CA 92516
Ph: 951-354-8362
Fx: 951-353-8347

No. California Office
1107 9th Street, Box 24
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-446-5131
Fx: 916-446-5744

Ron Prentice, Chief Executive Officer
Dan Kirby, Director of Operations
Everett Rice, Legislative Coordinator
Becky Burgoyne, Research Analyst
Trudy K. Thomas, Event Coordinator

Please send emails to info@californiafamily.org

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dudess on February 13, 2009 at 4:34pm

.
from claywoman on the eddie izzard site:

Subject: Gay Rights in CA - Invalidate Prop. 8

Posted: 13 Feb 2009 - 20:12 GMT

The anti gay rights amendment that passed last November revoked the right of gay couples to be legally married in the state of California.

On December 19, 2008, Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and seeking to nullify the marriages of 18,000 devoted same-sex couples solemnized before Prop 8 passed.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case on March 5, with a decision expected within 90 days.

You can sign the petition letter to enforce equality for all people and invalidate Prop. 8.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/fidelity

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This