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

[INDY500]

See, Indy, at least you stick to your guns. You don't want equal protection for a class of people, so you're willing to write them out of California's constitution. You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.

Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.

 

[mobvok]

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.

Bans on interracial marriage were not struck down by voters (or their elected officials).

Rather, it took the California Supreme Court to decide in Perez v. Sharp that blacks and whites had the right to marry.

Perhaps these blacks should have shut up and waited for the California legislature to get with the fucking program and repeal the statute? That is the logical conclusion of that position.

 

[BVS]

Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.

Two consenting adults... not that tough.

 

[martha]

Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.

I'm not voting for Proposition 8, so why would I reword it? I think this

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

says it all.

You're the one, mr. exclusion, who is willing to deny rights based on sexual orientation, not me.

I was going to edit, but BVS said it for me.

 

[martha]

Perhaps these blacks should have shut up and waited for the California legislature to get with the fucking program and repeal the statute? That is the logical conclusion of that position.

It's true. Whites "just weren't ready."

 

[mobvok]

Two consenting adults... not that tough.

I think he's going for the old polygamy argument, though.

The key assumption is that being gay affects your ability to love another person- you're unstable/unable to fully commit to another person. Or being polygamous, you're unstable/unable to fully commit to all your partners.

I think the gay argument is self-evidently unjustified. I am not sure about the second one, though. And polygamy has historically treated women very, very poorly.

 

[BVS]

Well I've already made the point of why polygamy doesn't work in this scenario but if he really wants to play dumb and go down that path I'll explain it again...

 

[martha]

You may have to. It's all the anti-gay marriage people seem to have.

That and the children.

 

[INDY500]

I'm not voting for Proposition 8, so why would I reword it?

martha
You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.

Well certainly not you. Unless, of course, martha's definition has no definition.

 

[martha]

Well certainly not you. Unless, of course, martha's definition has no definition.

I really don't know what this means.


My state's constitution has an equal protection clause. That's what caused the Supreme Court to overturn the ban on same sex marriage. People who support the ban need to amend the state constitution to do so. That's what Proposition 8 is, an amendment to the state constitution. It writes an exclusion limiting marriage into the constitution; it attempts to eliminate a group's constitutional right to equal protection based on sexual orientation.

So. That's why I don't support it. I don't support limiting access to rights based on sexual orientation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.

Only marriage between two consenting adults is valid or recognised in X?

 

[Se7en]

^you're forgetting about those who practice bestiality and will surely want to be married as well. we can't have that. where does it end a_wanderer????

 

[melon]

Only marriage between two consenting adults is valid or recognised in X?

See, that's too logical. If you're a social conservative, you have to come up with artificially confusing nonsense to make it seem irresponsible to support gay marriage, silly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Men are more likely to abuse their spouses ergo two men in a relationship are at too high a risk of domestic abuse necessitating a ban on gay marriage.

Simple.

 

[martha]

^ Nicely done.

 

[maycocksean]

The underlying debate really is about the morality of the issue. At least that's the conclusion I'm drawing after reading the martha/INDY back and forth. INDY's point about the Supreme Court trumping the will of the people makes sense if they're foisting something of questionable moral worth upon the people. If something that is morally questionable is going to become the law of the land, then it darn well better be the will of the people and not a handful of judges making that call.

On the other hand, if there is no moral issue connected to homosexuality then the morality is exclusively focused on rights being denied individuals. At that point (as in the civil rights cases) the courts must act to defend what is right even if the majority of the people aren't yet willing to go along.

Should be an ideal opportunity for someone to talk about how right and wrong extend beyond whatever the majority happens to think at the time. It would seem there is a higher standard than the "will of the people"?

 

[Diemen]

Excellent work on breaking this down to the crux of the issue, Sean.

Really can't make it much clearer than that.

 

[anitram]

INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.

 

[Se7en]

INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.

i was going to write a response to this thread about how judicial review and injunctions shaped the u.s. labor movement (in addition to things already mentioned here, i.e. the civil rights movement). "activist judges" certainly aren't a recent phenomenon, and libruls do not have a monopoly on them. your post is much more succinct however.

 

[maycocksean]

INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.

But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.

As I said in my earlier post, there's actually another argument going on underneath the surface of this one about the morality of the issue at hand. What I think is really happening is that INDY sees homosexuality as a moral issue on par with say, adultery, and his belief is that if an issue of dubious morality is going to be enshrined in law it should be done by the people not the courts. (Sorry to speak for you, INDY. . .feel free to correct me if you think I've got it wrong). On the other hand he sees segregation as morally wrong and therefore doesn't object to the courts stepping in as they did in Brown vs. Board of Education and other similar cases.

If he had the stand you're claiming he does he'd be saying things like, "Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges."

But somehow I don't think he's going to say that.

 

[mobvok]

edit I want to think about this response a little more.

 

[mobvok]

But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.

As I said in my earlier post, there's actually another argument going on underneath the surface of this one about the morality of the issue at hand. What I think is really happening is that INDY sees homosexuality as a moral issue on par with say, adultery, and his belief is that if an issue of dubious morality is going to be enshrined in law it should be done by the people not the courts. (Sorry to speak for you, INDY. . .feel free to correct me if you think I've got it wrong). On the other hand he sees segregation as morally wrong and therefore doesn't object to the courts stepping in as they did in Brown vs. Board of Education and other similar cases.

If he had the stand you're claiming he does he'd be saying things like, "Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges."

But somehow I don't think he's going to say that.

Civil liberties are not granted by popular whim when "morally wrongs" outweigh "dubious morality", they're inherent rights in a Constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional, regardless of whether people think homosexuality's icky or gross or not.

This logic legitimized in the 1950s would've kept racial laws from being repealed by the courts. These weren't written just for kicks, the racists wrote them because they DID think things like interracial marriage were "morally dubious". Therefore, they need to be enshrined or repealed by the people/legislature. Therefore:

Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges.

 

[Irvine511]

2 questions, INDY:

1. why did you want to get married?
2. what did you think about the overturning of the handgun ban in Washington DC?

 

[anitram]

But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. I have never complained about the legislative branch making laws - hello that's the foundation of the system! The legislative branch passes laws which, in turn, have to pass constitutional muster in order to be valid. It is my belief, based on legal reasoning, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional in California - now if you want to amend your constitution to make the ban constitutional, go right ahead. You'd be living in a backwards state, but you would be within your legal right of doing so. Therefore I really don't get your point here at all.

INDY seems to believe that unelected judges should not have, within their authority, the power to strike down laws (apparently even if they conclude that they are unconstitutional). My point is that if he feels this way, then perhaps he's better off functioning in a civil law system, where all laws are codified in statute by legislatures.

 

[maycocksean]

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. I have never complained about the legislative branch making laws - hello that's the foundation of the system! The legislative branch passes laws which, in turn, have to pass constitutional muster in order to be valid. It is my belief, based on legal reasoning, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional in California - now if you want to amend your constitution to make the ban constitutional, go right ahead. You'd be living in a backwards state, but you would be within your legal right of doing so. Therefore I really don't get your point here at all.

INDY seems to believe that unelected judges should not have, within their authority, the power to strike down laws (apparently even if they conclude that they are unconstitutional). My point is that if he feels this way, then perhaps he's better off functioning in a civil law system, where all laws are codified in statute by legislatures.

I know you've never complained about the legislative branch making laws. My point is that INDY would like to frame your argument that way. My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake. I'm arguing that his belief that homosexuality is wrong is REALLY what's undergirding his opposition to the courts striking down these laws.

But maybe I should just let him speak for himself . . .

 

[anitram]

It's hard to tell with him since anytime martha asked an equivalent question from the past, he brushes it aside by saying he wasn't around then or some such.

 

[Irvine511]

My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake.

hence, why conservatives never really want to discuss the revocation of the DC handgun ban.

no one in DC wants handguns to be legal. there's far and away enough murder in this town. but some guy sued, and guess what, the SCOTUS affirmed the fact that, yes, there is a right to buy and own a firearm in DC.

but i guess Republicans prefer murder to marriage?

 

[A_Wanderer]

hence, why conservatives never really want to discuss the revocation of the DC handgun ban.

no one in DC wants handguns to be legal. there's far and away enough murder in this town. but some guy sued, and guess what, the SCOTUS affirmed the fact that, yes, there is a right to buy and own a firearm in DC.

but i guess Republicans prefer murder to marriage?

I support both, but wouldn't his hypocrisy be matched by those who oppose gun rights in DC but support gay marriage through the courts?

 

[phillyfan26]

I know you've never complained about the legislative branch making laws. My point is that INDY would like to frame your argument that way. My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake. I'm arguing that his belief that homosexuality is wrong is REALLY what's undergirding his opposition to the courts striking down these laws.

But maybe I should just let him speak for himself . . .

I think melon has more or less said this before, though slightly more scathingly, stating that a bigot would never identify oneself as a bigot.

 

[Irvine511]

I support both, but wouldn't his hypocrisy be matched by those who oppose gun rights in DC but support gay marriage through the courts?

the principles are the same, but these are totally different issues. so while the principle of judicial activism, or not, applies, the benefits vs. costs are entirely different. so each issues should be debated on it's merits, and with the DC gun issue, there's a more pertinent public safety issue at play, imho.

again, marriage vs. murder.