SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
firstly, my people were tossed into the ovens, which is where we get the pink triangle.

secondly, it is legal to fire my people in many states and deny them housing on the basis of sexual orientation. it is illegal in FL to adopt children. and, as we know, it is illegal to be married except in MA or CA.

i wonder how you'd feel coming over here 100 some odd years ago to "No Irish" signs in various places of employment. it's kind of like that.

and i challenge you to find a group as discriminated against on a worldwide level as violently as homosexuals. we face execution in many countries in Africa and the Middle East.


Well, I think that this speaks to the classic difference between the liberal and the conservative way of looking at the world.

Conservatives - and on this I agree with them - tend to be sceptical of sectional gender/race/sexuality politics, because they think it divides people and is bad for society.
 
Well, I think that this speaks to the classic difference between the liberal and the conservative way of looking at the world.

Conservatives - and on this I agree with them - tend to be sceptical of sectional gender/race/sexuality politics, because they think it divides people and is bad for society.



this misses the point.

what we're talking about is not putting civil rights up to a vote. if we had voted on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 or to integrate the schools after 1956, just what do you think "the people" would have chosen? what do you think would have happened if the citizens of 19th century New York had been asked to put their ability to discriminate against Irish in employment to the vote? after all, you couldn't trust them, Bridget and Paddy were always drunk, always fighting, not good for business. it is absolutely the right of good Protestant business owners to determine who does and who does not work for them, and it's just too much of a risk to hire Irish given their past track record.

or, do we agree that people have basic rights regardless of whatever differences there are, that sexual orientation is as immutable and unchosen a human characteristic as race and gender, and can be demonstrated that it is entirely harmless and in fact the only harm that is done in regards to sexual orientation are those that are discriminated against on the basis of it, and thusly, we seek to protect those in the minority from the prejudices of the majority, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what the masses of bigots might think.
 
this misses the point.

It precisely addresses the point. As I see it, we are talking about an ideological distinction between statism and liberty. And I'll explain what I mean.

what we're talking about is not putting civil rights up to a vote. if we had voted on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 or to integrate the schools after 1956, just what do you think "the people" would have chosen? what do you think would have happened if the citizens of 19th century New York had been asked to put their ability to discriminate against Irish in employment to the vote? after all, you couldn't trust them, Bridget and Paddy were always drunk, always fighting, not good for business. it is absolutely the right of good Protestant business owners to determine who does and who does not work for them, and it's just too much of a risk to hire Irish given their past track record.


I disagree fundamentally with employment (so-called) 'anti-discrimination' legislation. So, for the sake of argument, I simply do not agree that these Protestant business owners should have been legally compelled to employ Irish workers against their will (i.e., the will of the Protestant business owners).

After all, it is, or rather was, THEIR businesses. Or, alternatively, I do not agree that Irish Catholic business owners should be, or should have been, legally compelled to employ WASP's. You as a liberal presumably disagree with this approach. And that's fine.

or, do we agree that people have basic rights regardless of whatever differences there are, that sexual orientation is as immutable and unchosen a human characteristic as race and gender, and can be demonstrated that it is entirely harmless and in fact the only harm that is done in regards to sexual orientation are those that are discriminated against on the basis of it, and thusly, we seek to protect those in the minority from the prejudices of the majority, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what the masses of bigots might think.

You can't legislate against bigotry. You might want to, but it's pointless, counterproductive and anti liberty (and I know I might be coming across a little Ayn Randian here).

I have the right to life, and freedom of expression, and to give my labour freely.

I do not have the right to compel an unwilling employer to employ me.

Do you think a gay nightclub should be compelled, against its will, to employ heterosexuals to fulfil an equality quota? Let's say the nightclub has 50 staff, and is required to employ at least 50% heteros.

What if said nightclub is situated in a very conservative state or country? What if it can't find any non-homophobic heterosexuals? Is it right for the state to COMPEL them to employ homophobic bigots? What then?
 
You can't legislate against bigotry. You might want to, but it's pointless, counterproductive and anti liberty (and I know I might be coming across a little Ayn Randian here).


except that you can. i'm going to assume that you're not actually advocating for Jim Crow laws, and what you're trying to say is that you can't make people like each other. that's absolutely true. but you can pass laws that make it impossible for people to discriminate in cases of legal rights on the basis of bigotry.

so what we're saying is that it's not that someone must hire Irish, but that they can be penalized if the deliberately do not hire Irish (and it's a rather tough thing to prove, legally). now if you want to talk quotas, that's something else, but again, as i said, this misses the point. we've gone onto a tangent about same-sex marriage. barring gay people from marrying is no different, in structure or intent, than was the barring of black students from white schools.
 
the logic behind denying basic civil rights to people on the basis of being gay is NO DIFFERENT than denying basic civil rights on the basis of skin color.
I would agree if we were talking about equal protection. But I don't think we are.

Anti-miscegenation laws clearly did although, unfortunately, it wasn't seen that way until 50 years ago. So if homosexuals (who have suffered civil rights abuses) were not being allowed to marry -- period -- that would without question be another civil rights violation. But same-sex activists seek a right never possessed by anyone, anywhere at anytime. The right to marry members of your own sex. Marriage has changed over the past 1500 years but always, always, even in polygamy marriages (which do at least have a history), it was a bonding of a male and a female.
I don't begrudge gay people (who even in a mean country like America teeming with homophobes) have found increasing acceptance from taking the next step and seeking legally recognized marriage as it's not without it's merits. But I do resent how it's being done (through judicial activism rather than democratic means, denigrating religious morals and slandering same-sex marriage opponents as modern-day Bull Connors.)

Which brings me to my other point about an earlier post of yours.
the citizens of CA are going to vote, and they are going to reject it.
it's still offensive in the extreme. should they have voted to allow African-Americans to attend the University of Alabama?
There's that false analogy again !!

Weren't we told during the Federal Marriage Amendment debate that we shouldn't "federalize" the issue, that it "should be left to the states to decide"? Can't I go back and quote you making that argument?
But isn't that exactly what California is now doing? So why is that now so "offensive in the extreme"?

Maybe because by "decide" what you really meant was "have it decided for them by a handful of lawyers in robes."
That's how I lose my liberty.
 
It's a tad more than a legal contract. Marriage is the foundation of society thus changing it's definition will radically change society. Who would argue that no-fault divorce and single parent households haven't done just that?
States have legitimate reasons for defining marriage. And in a democracy, the people have every expectation of being able to decide the nature of their community so long as they respect truly protected rights.

Any definition of marriage will include some people while excluding others. Including yours. But most importantly, if that definition is to change than it should be because the will of the people wishes it to.

You say it would radically change society. How do you know? Since marriage has always been between a man and a woman, how do we have ANY CLUE how homosexual marriages would 'radically change society'? What is the frame of reference? There is none. There is no proof of this. It is speculation.

Also, it is hard for me to imagine a time in which homosexuals outnumber heterosexuals, so even if gay marriage is legal nationwide, homosexual marriages are always going to be a sizable minority of marriages. I fail to see how that is going to 'radically change society'.
 
By subverting both the legislative process and the will of the people through judicial manufacture of "bogus" constitutional rights.

If someone stated that they thought federal laws about race were "bogus" and that their rights were being taken away because of it, would you agree?
 
By subverting both the legislative process and the will of the people through judicial manufacture of "bogus" constitutional rights.

Was women's suffrage a bogus right? After all, they never had it before, there was no precedent for it in our country. Was equal protection for African Americans a bogus right? They'd never had it before - no precedent for it in our country.

But lookout. If gays want to enter into a relationship with all the same legal rights as a heterosexual one, it's some cooked up bogus right.

Telling.
 
Anti-miscegenation laws clearly did although, unfortunately, it wasn't seen that way until 50 years ago. So if homosexuals (who have suffered civil rights abuses) were not being allowed to marry -- period -- that would without question be another civil rights violation. But same-sex activists seek a right never possessed by anyone, anywhere at anytime. The right to marry members of your own sex.


and blacks could just shut up and marry other blacks. whites other whites. asians other asians. jews other jews.


Marriage has changed over the past 1500 years but always, always, even in polygamy marriages (which do at least have a history), it was a bonding of a male and a female.

and adult men used to be able to marry children. there is a clear change in how we fundamentally understand homosexuality that exists today in a way that it didn't 100 years ago.


I don't begrudge gay people (who even in a mean country like America teeming with homophobes) have found increasing acceptance from taking the next step and seeking legally recognized marriage as it's not without it's merits. But I do resent how it's being done (through judicial activism rather than democratic means, denigrating religious morals and slandering same-sex marriage opponents as modern-day Bull Connors.)

but that's how you're going to be remembered. and, again, when did we put desegregation up for vote?



Which brings me to my other point about an earlier post of yours.

There's that false analogy again !!

Weren't we told during the Federal Marriage Amendment debate that we shouldn't "federalize" the issue, that it "should be left to the states to decide"? Can't I go back and quote you making that argument?
But isn't that exactly what California is now doing? So why is that now so "offensive in the extreme"?

Maybe because by "decide" what you really meant was "have it decided for them by a handful of lawyers in robes."
That's how I lose my liberty.


firstly, what "we" were told is different from what i'm telling you. the whole "don't federalize" and "let the states decide" was a distraction from the actual issue at hand and a way for Republicans like, say, John McCain who really don't give a shit one way or the next about this issue some cover so they could vote against the amendment and not look like they were going to preside over Ellen and Portia's marriage.

what is offensive in the extreme is that you get to vote on whether or not i get to be treated as your equal.

but now, jumping off from that basic point, because i know what kind of a world we live in, it does seem that from a strategic point of view, it does make sense to let the states "decide" in the sense that it doesn't make much sense for MS and CA to have to live by the same laws all of the time.

and, i'll state it again -- there is a clear, direct analogy between desegregation and marriage equality. blacks had their colleges, why did they have to go to the University of Alabama?
 
You say it would radically change society. How do you know? Since marriage has always been between a man and a woman, how do we have ANY CLUE how homosexual marriages would 'radically change society'? What is the frame of reference? There is none. There is no proof of this. It is speculation.



Massachusetts -- with it's excellent public schools, best universities on the planet, and lowest divorce rate in the country -- seems to be doing just fine.

California is thrilled to have such a boost to their economy.

Canada, however ... it is tragic what's happened up there due to gay marriage. we should just rename it North Tragikistan. :tsk:
 
By subverting both the legislative process and the will of the people through judicial manufacture of "bogus" constitutional rights.



like the bogus right to be able to marry the person of your choice, even if they are of a different race than you.
 
You can't step outside your door without seeing a gay wedding! Seriously. Since the law came into effect, everyone wants to be a married gay! We have like 5 straight people left in the country now! They've even gotten to my cats - the other day, one of the boys humped another boy! :(

On the up side, the whole nation has been decorated with tulle, ribbons and tea lights, so there's that. :up:
 
You can't step outside your door without seeing a gay wedding! Seriously. Since the law came into effect, everyone wants to be a married gay! We have like 5 straight people left in the country now! They've even gotten to my cats - the other day, one of the boys humped another boy! :(

On the up side, the whole nation has been decorated with tulle, ribbons and tea lights, so there's that. :up:


Win.
 
Was women's suffrage a bogus right? After all, they never had it before, there was no precedent for it in our country. Was equal protection for African Americans a bogus right? They'd never had it before - no precedent for it in our country.
If someone stated that they thought federal laws about race were "bogus" and that their rights were being taken away because of it, would you agree?
Which is exactly what happened as the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments which guaranteed equal protection and equal rights for blacks began to be undermined by the states through Jim Crow and other laws and, AND, believe it or not, judicial activism working in the other direction to strip away rights under "bogus" pretenses. That was the basis of the Civil Rights struggle, to regain what was promised but never delivered after the Civil War and Emancipation. That is the Promised Land that MLK spoke of.

No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.


As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.
But let's not go down the path abortion took in the 70's. 35 years later and it's still a contentious issue.
 
No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.

Exactly, there's nothing in that declaration stating that marriage is just between a man and a woman. So why do you want to limit it then?
 
As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.


You thinking that it was acceptable to the gals to wait forty years to be "allowed" to vote is incredible. Perhaps they are taking it as an example, just not the way you think they should. Perhaps the ridiculousness of the wait for suffrage is the example they're taking to heart.

Maybe you'd prefer everyone to just wait until you can wrap your head around the idea of equal rights?
 
Which is exactly what happened as the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments which guaranteed equal protection and equal rights for blacks began to be undermined by the states through Jim Crow and other laws and, AND, believe it or not, judicial activism working in the other direction to strip away rights under "bogus" pretenses. That was the basis of the Civil Rights struggle, to regain what was promised but never delivered after the Civil War and Emancipation. That is the Promised Land that MLK spoke of.

No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)


Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.


As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.
But let's not go down the path abortion took in the 70's. 35 years later and it's still a contentious issue.

If the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?

Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.
 
You thinking that it was acceptable to the gals to wait forty years to be "allowed" to vote is incredible. Perhaps they are taking it as an example, just not the way you think they should. Perhaps the ridiculousness of the wait for suffrage is the example they're taking to heart.

Maybe you'd prefer everyone to just wait until you can wrap your head around the idea of equal rights?

I didn't say it was acceptable, I was only pointing out an historical fact. But everything, including legislation, moves at a much faster pace today.

It's also a fact that Roe turned abortion into a political issue in a way that would never have happened had it become law through legislations. Do we ever hear about a "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees for women's suffrage?
Amending the Constitution, while more time consuming, seems to be in the long run a pretty good investment.
 
If the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?

Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.

Oh SHUT UP!

The Supreme Court did not give Bush the presidency .... God did.
 
If you the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?
Their answer should have been that the constitution is silent on abortion and therefore an issue up to the people and their elected representatives to decide. Could be complete prohibition or abortion on demand through the full 9 months, either being "constitutional."

Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.
Please, it's been 8 years, The Supreme court (7-2 by the way, not even close) only stopped a recount which the Florida Supreme Court had mistakenly ordered in clear violation of Florida election laws. Anyway, Bush won by vote as well regardless of what that HBO movie Recount suggested.

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times

I'm sure Oliver Stone's treatment of the 2000 election will hold even less regard for the facts.
 
I didn't say it was acceptable, I was only pointing out an historical fact.
This seems like a dodge--if you're going to say that the legislative route is the model to follow, then you're pretty clearly saying that imposing that restriction is acceptable.

Do you think the reason why suffragists and black civil rights activists were willing to expend all that time and effort (and in the latter case, lives as well) securing the passage of the 19th Amendment, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was because they believed wholeheartedly in the rights of men and whites to decide whether women and blacks were worthy of equal legal status? That they wanted to make sure their rightful superiors were the ones to decide whether to let them into the club?
 
Last edited:
I disagree...

The point about legislation verses court imposed is a valid one. When legislation has been used the issue seems to be clearly over. Amendments to the constitution seem to do their job forging lasting change.

Change through the judicial process never seems to go away.

I am not saying that I expect anyone to wait for equality. God bless those who suffered while they have waited.
 
I think you may be misreading my point--I wasn't arguing that the legislative route isn't sometimes necessitated by circumstances, nor was I denying that Constitutional amendments and major pieces of legislation are generally harder to roll back than case law precedents. Rather I was pointing out the offensiveness of saying, 'I applaud the suffragists/black civil rights activists/whoever for doing the right thing by submitting their case for equality to a vote, so that men's and whites' liberties to decide if they wished to grant that status wouldn't be infringed upon.' You wouldn't find many activists from either movement agreeing that they should have had to do it that way; on the contrary, it is shameful that they had to do it at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom