Gay-Serbia.com
https://www.gay-serbia.com/forum/
. A sve što želim jeste zakonski priznata zajednica sa mojim partnerom koji time neće biti samo moj prijatelj. A da li ćemo biti muž&muž mi uopšte ne pričinjava neku satisfakciju.
Originally posted by bas bleu
oh dear.
kad kazem gej brak mislim upravo na zakonski priznatu zajednicu a ne na tortu sa dve zenske/muske figurice on top
radi se o tome sto npr moja zena (ili, u cilju analne preciznosti koja se trazi ovde, devojka koju ja smatram svojim life partner) ima drzavljanstvo zemlje u kojoj boravimo i koje bi i ja automatski dobila da smo strejt par, ili ako ikada budemo imale decu da bismo obe bili zakonski priznati roditelji a ne samo ona koja je bioloska majka ili adoptive parent, da ako se jednoj od nas nesto desi da ona druga ima pravo na takve bizarne stvari od organizacije sahrane do nasledjivanja.
Originally posted by smaugOvaj, jesi li ti jeo/jela bunike? Ja upravo govorim da mi nije bitno kako se nešto zove... Isto tako, savršeno dobro znam gde živim i šta to znači. Forsiranje te reči "brak", "homoseksualni brak" i slično samo dodatno provocira ionako zatucani okoliš, što odugovlači postizanje suštinskih ciljeva.
Nije bitno kako se zove, bitno je sta je.
Jebote u kojoj to Srbiji vi zivite?
Ja skoro bila pa nisam primetila da se ista drasticno promenilo na bolje glede homoseksualaca i ljudskih prava im.
Kako to da ti smetaju kozmeticke stvari dal ce da te zovu muz i muz a ne smeta ti cinjenica da ne mozes da budes ni m od muza...
Jes procitao/pogledao sve klipove?
Oh Jesus Christ super star....
Originally posted by KylenderMislim da je jako bitna stavka upravo to zakonsko priznavanje partnera/ke kao roditelja deteta drugog partnera/ke (koji je biloski otac/majka) jer ako se njemu/njoj nesto desi (a mogucnost usvajanja od strane partnera/ke ne potoji) ode dete kod babe/tetke/u dom po zakonu.
I neće mi biti suštinski važno da li ću biti zakonski priznati roditelj detetu mog partnera - šta god zakon rekao ja ću se osećati kao roditelj. Prosto, mnoge suštinske stvari se upravo i dešavaju mimo zakona i prava.
Originally posted by KylenderPa to sto ces se ti osecati kao roditelj bez obzira sta zakon kaze, je bas lepo i naravno da te zakon nece spreciti da budes dobar roditelj, da te dete tako zove i da volis to dete. Ono sto mene zanima je sta se desi detetu/sa detetom ako jedan od roditelja (koji se tako oseca) umre, zavrsi u bolnici... Ili npr koga zovu u bolnicu ako se detetu nesto desi? Znas sta se desi ako zvanicno po zakonu zajednica (kako god hoces da se ona zove) nije priznata - dete pripadne babama i dedama i socijalnim ustanovama, a ne drugom partneru/roditelju. I onda ti mozes da se slikas i nemas da vidis ili se staras o detetu. I ostavljen si na milost tim babama, dedama i ustanovama da odluce dal ce i oni da osecaju da ti treba da budes sa detetom a ne oni. Zbog toga ja kazem da treba zakon makar se zvao i brak. Dakle treba prvo da ti se da mogucnost da budes u ozvanicenoj zajednici/braku a onda ti vidi dal ces ili neces.Originally posted by smaugOvaj, jesi li ti jeo/jela bunike? Ja upravo govorim da mi nije bitno kako se nešto zove... Isto tako, savršeno dobro znam gde živim i šta to znači. Forsiranje te reči "brak", "homoseksualni brak" i slično samo dodatno provocira ionako zatucani okoliš, što odugovlači postizanje suštinskih ciljeva.
Nije bitno kako se zove, bitno je sta je.
Jebote u kojoj to Srbiji vi zivite?
Ja skoro bila pa nisam primetila da se ista drasticno promenilo na bolje glede homoseksualaca i ljudskih prava im.
Kako to da ti smetaju kozmeticke stvari dal ce da te zovu muz i muz a ne smeta ti cinjenica da ne mozes da budes ni m od muza...
Jes procitao/pogledao sve klipove?
Oh Jesus Christ super star....
Nisam pogledao sve klipove, ali i dalje znam šta pišem. Uopšte mi nisu potrebne neke stvari koje heteroseksualni parovi dobijaju automatski.
I neće mi biti suštinski važno da li ću biti zakonski priznati roditelj detetu mog partnera - šta god zakon rekao ja ću se osećati kao roditelj. Prosto, mnoge suštinske stvari se upravo i dešavaju mimo zakona i prava.
Ali, isto tako ponavljam, da je to moje mišljenje i ono što je meni bitno. Ne govorim drugima da su glupi i ne iščuđavam se ako žele i svaku moguću formalnost.
Originally posted by KurmaherSta to znaci? Sta je uopste taj prop 8? Da li se to odnosi na Kaliforniju - pa oni su dozvolili gay brakove, pa zabranili, pa sad je zabrana neustavna - je li tako? Pa je li sad ovo dobra vest ili sam ja nesto pomesala...
Najnovija vest:
Prop 8 je malopre proglasen neustavnim.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue for the two couples, bringing together a pair of litigators best known as adversaries who respectively represented George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.ovo je tako savrsheno
"We have other battles ahead of us, but with this decision carefully analyzing the evidence we are well on our way to victory," Olson said Wednesday.
Reveling in their joint victory, Boies said he and Olson's alliance would prove valuable if the Proposition 8 case, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, reaches the Supreme Court.
"Ted and I have a deal – He is going to get the 5 justices that were for him in Bush v. Gore and I'm going to get the 4 justices that were with me in Bush v. Gore," he joked.
In July, a District Court judge in Massachusetts decided in July that the state's legally married gay and lesbian couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.
Judge Walker's factual findings are breathtaking, if only for their sheer depth. From page 54 to 109, Judge Walker lays out his findings, eviscerates the testimony of anti-marriage equality experts and emphasizes the long list of statements where Prop 8 opponents conceded their factual case. In my years as an appellate litigator, I have never seen a factual record as detailed and well-documented as this. My compliments to Judge Walker and his clerks.It's In: An Analysis of the Proposition 8 Ruling by ARI EZRA WALDMAN
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Most of the decision (the first 109 pages) is the “factual findings.” This is crucial, and here’s why. On appeal, Judge Walker’s conclusions of law are basically irrelevant. Questions of law are decided fresh on appeal, and the trial court’s thoughts on the law are entitled to no deference. On the other hand, only a trial court can make factual findings. A Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when those findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony. Judge Walker knows this. He knows that his primary role in this case is to weigh the credibility of the evidence that was presented at trial and apply the facts that were proven to the law. But the law–unlike the facts–ultimately will be decided by nine Justices at a higher pay grade. Consequently, we should be grateful to Judge Walker for carefully and diligently going through the facts of the case, creating a detailed and compelling record for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.Analyzing the Prop 8 WIN: A Few Large Points By Brian Devine
Originally posted by unic0rn
Je, ali mislim da nema sanse to da prodje vrhovni sud, jer njihov vrhovni sud bash i nije naklonjen ljudskim pravima
a ako se to pojavi pred njim, i ne prodje, to je onda totalni dizaster.
Originally posted by scout_finchoni njih biraju jednom i to im je trajna funkcija
Originally posted by unic0rn
Je, ali mislim da nema sanse to da prodje vrhovni sud, jer njihov vrhovni sud bash i nije naklonjen ljudskim pravima
a ako se to pojavi pred njim, i ne prodje, to je onda totalni dizaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... ted_States
The Roberts Court (2005–present) began with the confirmation and swearing in of Chief Justice John G. Roberts on September 29, 2005, and is the current presiding court.[58] The Roberts Court is seen as more conservative than the previous court.[59]
totalno neverovatno. Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or
intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage
license is more than a license to have procreative sexual
intercourse. FF 21. “t would demean a married couple were it
to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual
intercourse.”
The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United
States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The
evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion,
including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social
disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason
to challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that the
movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an
evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in
marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for
excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
order to marry. FF 21.Rather, the exclusion exists as an
artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct
roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.
Today, gender is notrelevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO
ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY
Having determined that plaintiffs seek to exercise their
fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause, the court
must consider whether the availability of Registered Domestic
Partnerships fulfills California’s due process obligation to samesex
couples. The evidence shows that domestic partnerships were
created as an alternative to marriage that distinguish same-sex
from opposite-sex couples.
California has created two separate and parallel
institutions to provide couples with essentially the same rights
and obligations.
The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships
exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF
53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic
partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and
responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that
the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly
disadvantages plaintiffs.
The record reflects that
marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic
partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process
obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a
substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to samesex
couples.
PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING)
REASON
Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.”
As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,
Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal
Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the
basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual
orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination.
Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a
woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition
8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to
restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But
Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital
partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry
another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.
Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays
and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so
arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57.
Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex ——
heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner
restricted by Proposition 8. Those who would choose to marry
someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to
marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.
Homosexual conduct and identity together define what it means to be
gay or lesbian. See FF 42-43. Indeed, homosexual conduct and
attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of
what makes someone gay or lesbian.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection
Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of
review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question
whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should
be subject to a heightened standard of review.
Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational
basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians
are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect.
Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual
orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or
general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.
The court asked the parties to identify a difference
between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might
fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Doc
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
#677 at 8. Proponents pointed only to a difference between samesex
couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of
producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and
opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual
intercourse of producing such offspring). Doc #687 at 32-34.
Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government
may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the
government may need to take into account fertility when
legislating.
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis
for a law. Rather, the state must have an interest
apart from the fact of the tradition itself.
The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an
individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally
further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead,
the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose
when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender
roles.
California has eliminated all legallymandated
gender roles except the requirement that a marriage
consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus
enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that
the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a
foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic
life.
The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex
couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence
shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality,
because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based
only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to samesex
couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,
see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to
defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Originally posted by scout_finchsad mi pade na pamet, jesu li neki njihovi drugi pravnici, pre svega sudije, komentarisale obrazlozenje presude?
pa da, oni odlucuju i o cemu ce da odlucuju:lol: inace roberts, scalia, thomas i alito su konzervativci, jedino kennedy nije do te mere konzervativan, a da je pritom predlozen od strane predsednika republikanca(ronald regan). a kagan jos uvek nije ucestvovala u glasanju, tek sto je postavljena. liberali su breyer i ginsburg. i verovatno sotomayor.
u svakom slucaju,svaka castsudiji koji je doneo odluku u ovom slucaju. inace odluka je obrazlozena na preko 130 strana, procitala sam neke delove, covek je neverovatan. svaka cast:hail:
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08 ... cision.pdf ovo je odluka u pdf formatu, ako nekog zanima da procita.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
