BZZZZT! WRONG! Not only Sun *ever* do this, they actually did it when Microsoft did essentially exactly the same thing to Java on Windows that Sun is doing to Java on Android. Sun was right to sue the shit out of Microsoft then, Oracle is equally right to sue the shit out of Google now.
It is quite weird to see the Slashdot community support Google when they are trying to do exactly what Microsoft was trying to do when they aimed to destroy the Java platform through Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Puzzling. Is there something about Google that makes them more "holy" than Microsoft?
Really? Why is this kudos to Google? Google tries to pull a Microsoft and splinter the Java platform in a very bad way. Embrace, extend, destroy. Oracle say "Ah, no, you can not do that", and Oracle becomes the bully?
Obviously Oracle is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they want to milk some cash out of the platform, by all means, and why not. It is their platform. I don't understand why it is OK for Google to fulfill the work of Microsoft though. Why is it good to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the Java platform? Who would gain from that?
Honestly, this can end in many ways, the good one would be that Java stays a viable cross-platform system, and that means Google has to lose. If Google wins Java has a very uncertain future as a platform. If Oracle wins Java has an uncertain future as a totally free platform, but it has a future as a platform as such. In other words, Google wins -> Java is destroyed, Oracle wins -> Java is no longer free. Heavily invested in Java, I have no problem paying Oracle for it to stay a viable platform.
BZZZT! Wrong. It is Google who is destroying Java with their move, not Oracle. Java is a platform with certain characteristics, and Google is undermining these in a massive way. This is exactly what Microsoft tried to do, and Sun sensibly sued their asses for it. Why should they allow Google to splinter Java when they would not allow Microsoft to do so? Is Google some sort of Holy Pig that can destroy whatever they want to without anyone in the "community" standing up to them?
Oracle has no choice, and the "bad guy" in this situation is Google. Google (or the OHA if you want to nit-pick) is destroying Java in exactly the same way that Microsoft tried to destroy Java. If Oracle wants Java to survive as a viable multi-platform development environment they need to kill Dalvik. Simple as that.
It is funny how, when Microsoft did this, the "community" turned against Microsoft, but when God^H^H^HGoogle does exactly the same thing then it is OK.
Start a private setchicks@thefarm project Get inspiration here. You can at least not do any worse than they have, even though three meters is a little smaller than the Arecibo. You won't be looking for any non-random signals, you can be more specific and look for chick music only, and remember size doesn't matter!
I'd consider that as framework bugs which were common a few years ago but should be fixed now
They are not, and to a degree they never will be. It is not possible for three disconnected teams to stay in synch. In this case you have the Firefox team who does not care much about the Framework guys who has no ties whatsoever to Microsoft who is doing IE. In other words, they will step on each others toes forever.
if your user devices are standartised enough to support Silverlight, then on these devices you shouldn't have any GWT incompability issues, isn't it so?
In my environment we have Firefox (last couple of versions, depending), Internet Explorer and some people on Mac using whatever they want. No Linux desktops, though most of our servers are. All of these are fine with Silverlight (Linux isn't relevant since it isn't used on the desktop). GWT exhibits significantly different behavior on these platforms. Even if you just have IE and FF on Windows, GWT will have some unacceptable differences between those two.
HTML+JavaScript manually sure can be suicidal, but with appropriate frameworks
These are the frameworks I have tried, who have all failed. JSF/Richfaces, Seam with various stuff, GWT, JSP (yes, I am that old) etc. They all have the same problem: They are almost browser agnostic. Not quite, but almost. Sadly, almost doesn't do. It is too little. It doesn't work.
Example: Make a modal dialog in GWT. Bring the page up in IE (or was that FF, not sure). You can click on any component behind them, say a check box. In IE, the check box will, when you click on it, stay un-checked, but - horror of all horrors - GWT will send an event back to the server as if you just clicked that check box. FF is the opposite, it will allow you to check the box, and it will show it, but no event will be sent back to the server, so the users sees the check box is checked, but the server keeping state thinks the check box is not checked.
This is possible to work around, for sure. The problem is that this is just one of many, many problems. Even worse, once these problems are fixed and the browser guys update their browsers, something completely different will break. Going by Murphy's law, what will probably break is the work-around I had to put in place to make it work before.
In a major business app, with any framework of any size, you see this time and again. It never ends. For the plugin stuff (Flash/Flex/Silverlight/Java GUI) the regression factor is significantly less.
What do I mean by "never scale". Not the client for sure. The server. Once you have very complex applications, the client state also becomes very complex. This means that you have to manipulate a lot of data at a time, probably keep significant amounts of data in memory, store things for extended periods of time (think complicated Wizard-style interfaces for example) etc.
The problem is, keeping all of this on the server side has a significant impact on the server scalability. Put hundreds of users on it and make the server keep state and you are quickly running into serious issues.
Keep state on the client, have the server do server work, and you are fine.
Why do people always assume that Silverlight/Flash is to be used for childish animations and toys for children? Doesn't anyone who read/. actually build applications? You know, the ones that make up the vast majority of the worlds software efforts. In-house, special-purpose LOB apps that collect data from a huge variety of data sources. The kinds where you have to think about transactions that go not only across domains but across technologies and political and business divides.
Honestly. This is where the majority of SW developers find them selves. Not doing silly websites so that you can check your bank status, but doing in-house apps for decision-making support. Doing such apps using Javascript/AJAX etc would be insane. For one, they would never scale.
You can't really blame the tool for the bad design of a web site, even when it was done in-house at Microsoft. This is not the fault of Silverlight but of the idiot who did the page hosting the Silverlight app.
For major LOB apps, the kind that needs to keep state on the client to a degree, the kind that deals with data from a large number of data sources, say Oracle plus a couple of WebService servers integrating some financial data from a IBM system-i solution etc, the choice is IMNSHO rather easy. You go with Silverlight. If it is internal.
Typically such apps are developed by moderate sized, or even small-ish development teams who have no need to deploy outside of the corporate network. Silverlight has, by a decent margin at 4.0, the upper hand on Flash. The tools and the programming language are simply better - maintaining C# code is far easier than maintaining Actionscript code. C# is basically just Java, to the degree that you can almost copy and paste Java and compile it with a C# compiler (not that I recommend that, there are things you'd miss that you should make use of in C#).
Some people would recommend you do this in Javascript/AJAX etc, they are insane or have never developed a serious LOB app. You really, really should not even try. GWT makes it a little less painful, but only a little so. There are still a significant amount of differences between browsers, even when compiled by GWT to browser-specific Javascript, to make GWT a maintenance nightmare.
Flash/Flex (haven't moved on to the latest one) is good if you need to integrate with the external world. For suppliers and partners you can just mandate Silverlight, but for the general public you should go with Flash. On the other hand, if your app exposed to the general world is of a high complexity with client state management etc, you might want to re-think the approach in general.
For simplistic websites, sure. Works like a charm. Developing a major LOB app that has to deal with entity state, client state etc, doing it in JavaScript/AJAX and HTML would be suicidal at best. The functionality simply isn't there, and you'd be insane to try it.
The vast majority of SW development is in-house apps that cater to very specific LOB needs. For those apps, Silverlight is the optimal choice if you have control of the environment, and Flash/Flex if you need to share with the general world outside.
Given the prices they are asking, particularly for upgrades
You can develop apps for both for free. I hope you are not in a position to give advice to anyone who is doing serious software development. Also, for a professional development shop that actually makes money from what they do, the commercial versions of these tools are dirt cheap.
You don't have to code in that horrible horror of horrors that is Javascript. IMNSHO developing large LOB apps in Javascript should qualify for capital punishment.
you will find that procreation is directly involved in the ruling
Wow. You really don't know how to read do you? Do you understand the word "most"? Do you understand that this is a subset of "all"? Did SCOTUS limit it to these "most"? Np, they did not.
Also, again in this case the lawyers argued that the measure had a rational basis. If it was not a limitation on fundamental rights, why argue that way? Also note how SCOTUS in this case phrases it: "the right to marry". It is not a privilege, it is a right. To all.
Another quote "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of
those who are not prisoners". If marriage is not a constitutional right but a privilege, how come SCOTUS uses those words?
There are obvious, easy alternatives to
the Missouri regulation that accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives.
In other words, the security objectives are not a rational basis for denying the inmates their constitutional rights.
You should not quote documents that do not support your case.
I am going to quote my self on this one, because there is something very very interesting in the 1987 verdict.
marriages are constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment"
What does that mean? It means that, according to SCOTUS, the value of marriage is in the symbolism, and what is says about you as a couple and what you want to say to the world. Marriage is not about physical realities. Marriage is an expression. It is a statement. SCOTUS clearly disconnects marriage from both the family structure and from procreation (neither is possible for a felon who can not have any contact with his spouse). In other words, SCOTUS more or less equates marriage with speech. I do think that SCOTUS has a reasonable understanding of the word "expression". Do you?
Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed
You are absolutely right, they are. The statements from SCOTUS on the concepts involved are not so limited however. If SCOTUS says that marrying someone is a fundamental right as such, it doesn't limit it to the case in question. If a SCOTUS decision was limited to the case in question there would never be any reason to look to previous SCOTUS cases, they are all, in some way, different. Precedent would have no meaning.
Please note that the lawyers for the proponents of Prop 8 agree with me and disagree with you. More below.
The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex
Please find the SCOTUS quote on that or admit you are just making shit up as you go.
If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.
I know it might not matter to you, but it actually matters to the law. You can not deny anyone a basic right without rational basis, but you can deny someone a privilege for a whole variety of reasons. Again, according to the law. No matter what you feel about it. This is why the distinction between a fundamental right and a privilege is crucial in law.
BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages
If you don't understand the difference between opting out and being denied, I don't think it is possible to teach you anything more basic than chewing gum and walking at the same time. Even that would take some time.
So how is a man marrying a man fundamental to our existence and survival? with a man and a woman, it's procreation
Are you mentally handicapped? Since when was marriage a requirement for procreation? Do you thing SCOTUS is retarded enough to think it is? Please tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is more fundamental to our existence and survival than is the marriage between a man and a man, or a man and a tree for that matter.
Funny enough, SCOTUS clearly explains to you that you are a moron since SCOTUS have clearly stated that procreation is not an issue. It did so in 1987 when it struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.
The Missouri law was defended on the grounds that since imprisoned felons are unable to have any physical contact with their spouses, let alone live with them, such a marriage could not serve what was claimed to be the "traditional" purposes of marriage, including procreation. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing in the Wisconsin case that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals" and that marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment." In other words, your argument over is exactly what the state of Missouri argued, and SCOTUS told them to fuck off.
It must be difficult for you when SCOTUS, again and again, state that your arguments are simply too dumb. Particularly when they did it before you were even born.
So the best you can do is to cite one case taken out of context
Not really, I just cited a case that blows your argument that it has anything at all to do with procreation, family or any societal structure out of the water.
Now, to what I alluded to above, how the Prop 8 attorneys actually agree with me. The arguments for Prop 8 has consistently been that it has a rational basis. Why would they use those arguments? If Prop 8 was not about removing someones fundamental right, there would be no need to argue that it has a rational basis. A lawyer will never argue against something that is irrelevant to his case, that is very dangerous territory. By arguing that Prop 8 has a rational basis the lawyers for the Prop 8 proponents take the position that marriage, even between two men or two women, is a fundamental right as defined in the constitution and by SCOTUS. Why do they agree with me on that, and not you?
I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road
No, it is not. Where on earth do you get that from?
As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution
BZZZT WRONG!
Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right
Since a varied set of court cases. Since, for example, since Loving v Virginia (1967) and since Zablocki v Redhail (1978).
explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else?
Because driving is a privilege, not a right. Again - the state can regulate privileges with far less restrictions than it can regulate fundamental rights.
Either make a constitutional argument or shut up about it
Easy. Marriage is, according to SCOTUS, a fundamental right, not a privilege. Fundamental rights can not be limited with no rational basis. It is that simple.
They had to get people to stop ignoring the rules that had changed via constitutional amendment who were ignoring the rules to maintain their own prejudices.
This is exactly parallel. Marriage is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right (not a privilege) and fundamental rights are protected by the equal protection clause and can not be limited without rational basis. It is that easy. This is why legal experts generally agree on this.
gay men and women can do exactly what the straight men and women can do
No, they can not. They can not marry whomever they wish. Since marrying whomever you wish (again, please...) is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right, it is illegal to restrict that without a rational basis. This means that restricting Jacks fundamental right to marry Joe is unconstitutional.
what disability doe gays suffer that would require the state to change laws and rules to accommodate
They lose quite a lot in fact. They lose the right to hospital visitations. They lose rights around insurance. There are, in California, 1100 rights and protections that only apply to married couples. A person who chooses not marry anyone have opted out. A person who is denied by the state the right to marry the person they want to marry is deprived of those by that same state.
Nothing in the US constitution forbids states from regulating marriages
BZZZT WRONG. Once SCOTUS defined marriage as a fundamental right, the equal protection clause forbids states from limiting marriages with no rational basis.
What is the rational basis the government can use to prevent Jack from marrying Joe? Please elaborate, and try to stay away from moronic "marry a pig", "marry a child" arguments. If you do not understand why they are moronic, look up the concept "consenting adults" somewhere, or have an adult explain it to you.
Why is preventing Joe from marrying Jack (when marriage has long since been defined as a fundamental right) not an undue limitation on the pursuit of happiness that Joe is entitled to by the work of the founding fathers? Who, other than Joe, defines what makes Joe happy?
the established rule of law is right
This is pure and utter rubbish. An enormous amount of "established rule of law" have been found to be unconstitutional.
bend the rules
In the same way the civil rights movement had to bend the rules to allow African Americans to ride the bus.
All US law is subject to constitutional scrutiny, and this law doesn't pass. There is no rational basis for denying Jack the (SCOTUS defined) inalienable right to marry whomever he pleases. Again, please show us where SCOTUS limits that right in any way between consenting adults.
The interesting thing about Prop 8 is that it, as Prop 22, has already bee struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So... who are better at determining the constitutionality of this, the California Supreme Court or you?
should we take your same illogical conclusions and apply it to pedophiles or shoplifters
This is a comment proving to the world that you are mentally retarded. For a wide number of reasons. Number one is that I covered it in what I wrote. Number two because it is just plain fucking stupid. If you want to argue something, don't turn on your moron mode first. If you don't understand what "consenting adults" mean, please ask an adult. In the mean time, go back to first grade and get an education.
The law doesn't stop people who want to marry someone of the same gender from marrying, it only makes them marry someone of an opposite gender
BZZZZT! Wrong. It stops them from marrying the person they want to. Now, before you come dragging with your moronic arguments about pigs or underage children or shoplifting or something equally asinine and infantile, try to look up the concept of "consenting adults".
does that mean all DUI laws should be invalidated
Grow up please.
Actually, prop 8 isn't unconstitutional as it's always been within the preview of the state to regulate legal contracts and that's essentially what marriage is
It seems the legal experts disagree with you on this one, and since you can't possibly, at age thirteen, have much of a law degree, I think I'll listen to them a little more than you.
Well, it was the people of a state who voted in a state law. Seems to me that is in line with the constitution
With a 52% majority. Thankfully there is lots of legal precedence in such cases. Let us examine Prop 14.
As Ronald Reagan (a prop 14 spokesperson) summed it up: If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house he has a right to do so
60% of Californians agreed with him. So, the people of California struck down a federal requirement that no such discrimination could take place.
Please note, I am not arguing that Prop 8 and Prop 14 are the same, discrimination based on race and sexual preference is not entirely the same. I am only arguing against the "people's will" aspect. The peoples will was, in the US overwhelmingly so (more than 70%), that one should be allowed to enact such discrimination. SCOTUS disagreed and told the people they were irrational bigots and should go fuck them selves.
But hey, go ahead and show me where 200 years of history
History is utterly irrelevant in law. Why even bring it up? As Kennedy said when SCOTUS struck down laws about same-gender sex, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". SCOTUS deals with rationalism and what is, not "what has always been". Going by your argument, property rights would still trump individual rights (as it did for quite some time in the US) and slavery would still be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
BZZZZT! WRONG! Not only Sun *ever* do this, they actually did it when Microsoft did essentially exactly the same thing to Java on Windows that Sun is doing to Java on Android. Sun was right to sue the shit out of Microsoft then, Oracle is equally right to sue the shit out of Google now.
It is quite weird to see the Slashdot community support Google when they are trying to do exactly what Microsoft was trying to do when they aimed to destroy the Java platform through Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Puzzling. Is there something about Google that makes them more "holy" than Microsoft?
Really? Why is this kudos to Google? Google tries to pull a Microsoft and splinter the Java platform in a very bad way. Embrace, extend, destroy. Oracle say "Ah, no, you can not do that", and Oracle becomes the bully?
Obviously Oracle is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they want to milk some cash out of the platform, by all means, and why not. It is their platform. I don't understand why it is OK for Google to fulfill the work of Microsoft though. Why is it good to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the Java platform? Who would gain from that?
Honestly, this can end in many ways, the good one would be that Java stays a viable cross-platform system, and that means Google has to lose. If Google wins Java has a very uncertain future as a platform. If Oracle wins Java has an uncertain future as a totally free platform, but it has a future as a platform as such. In other words, Google wins -> Java is destroyed, Oracle wins -> Java is no longer free. Heavily invested in Java, I have no problem paying Oracle for it to stay a viable platform.
BZZZT! Wrong. It is Google who is destroying Java with their move, not Oracle. Java is a platform with certain characteristics, and Google is undermining these in a massive way. This is exactly what Microsoft tried to do, and Sun sensibly sued their asses for it. Why should they allow Google to splinter Java when they would not allow Microsoft to do so? Is Google some sort of Holy Pig that can destroy whatever they want to without anyone in the "community" standing up to them?
Oracle has no choice, and the "bad guy" in this situation is Google. Google (or the OHA if you want to nit-pick) is destroying Java in exactly the same way that Microsoft tried to destroy Java. If Oracle wants Java to survive as a viable multi-platform development environment they need to kill Dalvik. Simple as that.
It is funny how, when Microsoft did this, the "community" turned against Microsoft, but when God^H^H^HGoogle does exactly the same thing then it is OK.
Start a private setchicks@thefarm project Get inspiration here. You can at least not do any worse than they have, even though three meters is a little smaller than the Arecibo. You won't be looking for any non-random signals, you can be more specific and look for chick music only, and remember size doesn't matter!
I'd consider that as framework bugs which were common a few years ago but should be fixed now
They are not, and to a degree they never will be. It is not possible for three disconnected teams to stay in synch. In this case you have the Firefox team who does not care much about the Framework guys who has no ties whatsoever to Microsoft who is doing IE. In other words, they will step on each others toes forever.
if your user devices are standartised enough to support Silverlight, then on these devices you shouldn't have any GWT incompability issues, isn't it so?
In my environment we have Firefox (last couple of versions, depending), Internet Explorer and some people on Mac using whatever they want. No Linux desktops, though most of our servers are. All of these are fine with Silverlight (Linux isn't relevant since it isn't used on the desktop). GWT exhibits significantly different behavior on these platforms. Even if you just have IE and FF on Windows, GWT will have some unacceptable differences between those two.
HTML+JavaScript manually sure can be suicidal, but with appropriate frameworks
These are the frameworks I have tried, who have all failed. JSF/Richfaces, Seam with various stuff, GWT, JSP (yes, I am that old) etc. They all have the same problem: They are almost browser agnostic. Not quite, but almost. Sadly, almost doesn't do. It is too little. It doesn't work.
Example: Make a modal dialog in GWT. Bring the page up in IE (or was that FF, not sure). You can click on any component behind them, say a check box. In IE, the check box will, when you click on it, stay un-checked, but - horror of all horrors - GWT will send an event back to the server as if you just clicked that check box. FF is the opposite, it will allow you to check the box, and it will show it, but no event will be sent back to the server, so the users sees the check box is checked, but the server keeping state thinks the check box is not checked.
This is possible to work around, for sure. The problem is that this is just one of many, many problems. Even worse, once these problems are fixed and the browser guys update their browsers, something completely different will break. Going by Murphy's law, what will probably break is the work-around I had to put in place to make it work before.
In a major business app, with any framework of any size, you see this time and again. It never ends. For the plugin stuff (Flash/Flex/Silverlight/Java GUI) the regression factor is significantly less.
What do I mean by "never scale". Not the client for sure. The server. Once you have very complex applications, the client state also becomes very complex. This means that you have to manipulate a lot of data at a time, probably keep significant amounts of data in memory, store things for extended periods of time (think complicated Wizard-style interfaces for example) etc.
The problem is, keeping all of this on the server side has a significant impact on the server scalability. Put hundreds of users on it and make the server keep state and you are quickly running into serious issues.
Keep state on the client, have the server do server work, and you are fine.
Absolutely, if you have a mixed desktop environment, Flex is better than Silverlight.
Why do people always assume that Silverlight/Flash is to be used for childish animations and toys for children? Doesn't anyone who read /. actually build applications? You know, the ones that make up the vast majority of the worlds software efforts. In-house, special-purpose LOB apps that collect data from a huge variety of data sources. The kinds where you have to think about transactions that go not only across domains but across technologies and political and business divides.
Honestly. This is where the majority of SW developers find them selves. Not doing silly websites so that you can check your bank status, but doing in-house apps for decision-making support. Doing such apps using Javascript/AJAX etc would be insane. For one, they would never scale.
You can't really blame the tool for the bad design of a web site, even when it was done in-house at Microsoft. This is not the fault of Silverlight but of the idiot who did the page hosting the Silverlight app.
For major LOB apps, the kind that needs to keep state on the client to a degree, the kind that deals with data from a large number of data sources, say Oracle plus a couple of WebService servers integrating some financial data from a IBM system-i solution etc, the choice is IMNSHO rather easy. You go with Silverlight. If it is internal.
Typically such apps are developed by moderate sized, or even small-ish development teams who have no need to deploy outside of the corporate network. Silverlight has, by a decent margin at 4.0, the upper hand on Flash. The tools and the programming language are simply better - maintaining C# code is far easier than maintaining Actionscript code. C# is basically just Java, to the degree that you can almost copy and paste Java and compile it with a C# compiler (not that I recommend that, there are things you'd miss that you should make use of in C#).
Some people would recommend you do this in Javascript/AJAX etc, they are insane or have never developed a serious LOB app. You really, really should not even try. GWT makes it a little less painful, but only a little so. There are still a significant amount of differences between browsers, even when compiled by GWT to browser-specific Javascript, to make GWT a maintenance nightmare.
Flash/Flex (haven't moved on to the latest one) is good if you need to integrate with the external world. For suppliers and partners you can just mandate Silverlight, but for the general public you should go with Flash. On the other hand, if your app exposed to the general world is of a high complexity with client state management etc, you might want to re-think the approach in general.
For simplistic websites, sure. Works like a charm. Developing a major LOB app that has to deal with entity state, client state etc, doing it in JavaScript/AJAX and HTML would be suicidal at best. The functionality simply isn't there, and you'd be insane to try it.
The vast majority of SW development is in-house apps that cater to very specific LOB needs. For those apps, Silverlight is the optimal choice if you have control of the environment, and Flash/Flex if you need to share with the general world outside.
Given the prices they are asking, particularly for upgrades
You can develop apps for both for free. I hope you are not in a position to give advice to anyone who is doing serious software development. Also, for a professional development shop that actually makes money from what they do, the commercial versions of these tools are dirt cheap.
You don't have to code in that horrible horror of horrors that is Javascript. IMNSHO developing large LOB apps in Javascript should qualify for capital punishment.
you will find that procreation is directly involved in the ruling
Wow. You really don't know how to read do you? Do you understand the word "most"? Do you understand that this is a subset of "all"? Did SCOTUS limit it to these "most"? Np, they did not.
Also, again in this case the lawyers argued that the measure had a rational basis. If it was not a limitation on fundamental rights, why argue that way? Also note how SCOTUS in this case phrases it: "the right to marry". It is not a privilege, it is a right. To all.
Another quote "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners". If marriage is not a constitutional right but a privilege, how come SCOTUS uses those words?
There are obvious, easy alternatives to the Missouri regulation that accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives.
In other words, the security objectives are not a rational basis for denying the inmates their constitutional rights.
You should not quote documents that do not support your case.
I am going to quote my self on this one, because there is something very very interesting in the 1987 verdict.
marriages are constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment"
What does that mean? It means that, according to SCOTUS, the value of marriage is in the symbolism, and what is says about you as a couple and what you want to say to the world. Marriage is not about physical realities. Marriage is an expression. It is a statement. SCOTUS clearly disconnects marriage from both the family structure and from procreation (neither is possible for a felon who can not have any contact with his spouse). In other words, SCOTUS more or less equates marriage with speech. I do think that SCOTUS has a reasonable understanding of the word "expression". Do you?
Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed
You are absolutely right, they are. The statements from SCOTUS on the concepts involved are not so limited however. If SCOTUS says that marrying someone is a fundamental right as such, it doesn't limit it to the case in question. If a SCOTUS decision was limited to the case in question there would never be any reason to look to previous SCOTUS cases, they are all, in some way, different. Precedent would have no meaning.
Please note that the lawyers for the proponents of Prop 8 agree with me and disagree with you. More below.
The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex
Please find the SCOTUS quote on that or admit you are just making shit up as you go.
If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.
I know it might not matter to you, but it actually matters to the law. You can not deny anyone a basic right without rational basis, but you can deny someone a privilege for a whole variety of reasons. Again, according to the law. No matter what you feel about it. This is why the distinction between a fundamental right and a privilege is crucial in law.
BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages
If you don't understand the difference between opting out and being denied, I don't think it is possible to teach you anything more basic than chewing gum and walking at the same time. Even that would take some time.
So how is a man marrying a man fundamental to our existence and survival? with a man and a woman, it's procreation
Are you mentally handicapped? Since when was marriage a requirement for procreation? Do you thing SCOTUS is retarded enough to think it is? Please tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is more fundamental to our existence and survival than is the marriage between a man and a man, or a man and a tree for that matter.
Funny enough, SCOTUS clearly explains to you that you are a moron since SCOTUS have clearly stated that procreation is not an issue. It did so in 1987 when it struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.
The Missouri law was defended on the grounds that since imprisoned felons are unable to have any physical contact with their spouses, let alone live with them, such a marriage could not serve what was claimed to be the "traditional" purposes of marriage, including procreation. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing in the Wisconsin case that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals " and that marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment." In other words, your argument over is exactly what the state of Missouri argued, and SCOTUS told them to fuck off.
It must be difficult for you when SCOTUS, again and again, state that your arguments are simply too dumb. Particularly when they did it before you were even born.
So the best you can do is to cite one case taken out of context
Not really, I just cited a case that blows your argument that it has anything at all to do with procreation, family or any societal structure out of the water.
Now, to what I alluded to above, how the Prop 8 attorneys actually agree with me. The arguments for Prop 8 has consistently been that it has a rational basis. Why would they use those arguments? If Prop 8 was not about removing someones fundamental right, there would be no need to argue that it has a rational basis. A lawyer will never argue against something that is irrelevant to his case, that is very dangerous territory. By arguing that Prop 8 has a rational basis the lawyers for the Prop 8 proponents take the position that marriage, even between two men or two women, is a fundamental right as defined in the constitution and by SCOTUS. Why do they agree with me on that, and not you?
I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road
No, it is not. Where on earth do you get that from?
As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution
BZZZT WRONG!
Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right
Since a varied set of court cases. Since, for example, since Loving v Virginia (1967) and since Zablocki v Redhail (1978).
explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else?
Because driving is a privilege, not a right. Again - the state can regulate privileges with far less restrictions than it can regulate fundamental rights.
Either make a constitutional argument or shut up about it
Easy. Marriage is, according to SCOTUS, a fundamental right, not a privilege. Fundamental rights can not be limited with no rational basis. It is that simple.
They had to get people to stop ignoring the rules that had changed via constitutional amendment who were ignoring the rules to maintain their own prejudices.
This is exactly parallel. Marriage is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right (not a privilege) and fundamental rights are protected by the equal protection clause and can not be limited without rational basis. It is that easy. This is why legal experts generally agree on this.
gay men and women can do exactly what the straight men and women can do
No, they can not. They can not marry whomever they wish. Since marrying whomever you wish (again, please...) is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right, it is illegal to restrict that without a rational basis. This means that restricting Jacks fundamental right to marry Joe is unconstitutional.
what disability doe gays suffer that would require the state to change laws and rules to accommodate
They lose quite a lot in fact. They lose the right to hospital visitations. They lose rights around insurance. There are, in California, 1100 rights and protections that only apply to married couples. A person who chooses not marry anyone have opted out. A person who is denied by the state the right to marry the person they want to marry is deprived of those by that same state.
Nothing in the US constitution forbids states from regulating marriages
BZZZT WRONG. Once SCOTUS defined marriage as a fundamental right, the equal protection clause forbids states from limiting marriages with no rational basis.
Sigh. Let's try to take this from the start.
What is the rational basis the government can use to prevent Jack from marrying Joe? Please elaborate, and try to stay away from moronic "marry a pig", "marry a child" arguments. If you do not understand why they are moronic, look up the concept "consenting adults" somewhere, or have an adult explain it to you.
Why is preventing Joe from marrying Jack (when marriage has long since been defined as a fundamental right) not an undue limitation on the pursuit of happiness that Joe is entitled to by the work of the founding fathers? Who, other than Joe, defines what makes Joe happy?
the established rule of law is right
This is pure and utter rubbish. An enormous amount of "established rule of law" have been found to be unconstitutional.
bend the rules
In the same way the civil rights movement had to bend the rules to allow African Americans to ride the bus.
All US law is subject to constitutional scrutiny, and this law doesn't pass. There is no rational basis for denying Jack the (SCOTUS defined) inalienable right to marry whomever he pleases. Again, please show us where SCOTUS limits that right in any way between consenting adults.
Are you jockeying for a position in Klan leadership?
The interesting thing about Prop 8 is that it, as Prop 22, has already bee struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So... who are better at determining the constitutionality of this, the California Supreme Court or you?
should we take your same illogical conclusions and apply it to pedophiles or shoplifters
This is a comment proving to the world that you are mentally retarded. For a wide number of reasons. Number one is that I covered it in what I wrote. Number two because it is just plain fucking stupid. If you want to argue something, don't turn on your moron mode first. If you don't understand what "consenting adults" mean, please ask an adult. In the mean time, go back to first grade and get an education.
The law doesn't stop people who want to marry someone of the same gender from marrying, it only makes them marry someone of an opposite gender
BZZZZT! Wrong. It stops them from marrying the person they want to. Now, before you come dragging with your moronic arguments about pigs or underage children or shoplifting or something equally asinine and infantile, try to look up the concept of "consenting adults".
does that mean all DUI laws should be invalidated
Grow up please.
Actually, prop 8 isn't unconstitutional as it's always been within the preview of the state to regulate legal contracts and that's essentially what marriage is
It seems the legal experts disagree with you on this one, and since you can't possibly, at age thirteen, have much of a law degree, I think I'll listen to them a little more than you.
The judge in this case ignored evidence
Elaborate please.
Sorry, I forgot this one:
Well, it was the people of a state who voted in a state law. Seems to me that is in line with the constitution
With a 52% majority. Thankfully there is lots of legal precedence in such cases. Let us examine Prop 14.
As Ronald Reagan (a prop 14 spokesperson) summed it up: If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house he has a right to do so
60% of Californians agreed with him. So, the people of California struck down a federal requirement that no such discrimination could take place.
Please note, I am not arguing that Prop 8 and Prop 14 are the same, discrimination based on race and sexual preference is not entirely the same. I am only arguing against the "people's will" aspect. The peoples will was, in the US overwhelmingly so (more than 70%), that one should be allowed to enact such discrimination. SCOTUS disagreed and told the people they were irrational bigots and should go fuck them selves.
But hey, go ahead and show me where 200 years of history
History is utterly irrelevant in law. Why even bring it up? As Kennedy said when SCOTUS struck down laws about same-gender sex, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". SCOTUS deals with rationalism and what is, not "what has always been". Going by your argument, property rights would still trump individual rights (as it did for quite some time in the US) and slavery would still be legal.