CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.

The governmental response needs to be very narrow.

If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.

Well at least you are consistent.

FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.

I was actually referring more to a person who had major surgery that made procreation completely impossible.

My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.

But there are circumstances with heterosexuals where they cannot physically procreate. Say, for example, someone who had her uterus removed due to cancer. It doesn't require much investigation by the state. Plus, the elderly are another example.

What narrow response would you advocate?

Before you even get to a narrow response, there needs to be an actual governmental interest that can outweigh the personal liberty at stake. I just don't see any reason why the government would need to ban gay marriage to meet any sort of governmental interest. You brought up the AIDS issue, but banning gay marriage doesn't address it at all.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any other reason to ban gay marriage outside of moral reasons - which alone are not sufficient?

I'm back, and good morning.

To me, there are reasons the state should not allow gay marriage, which have no moral component. My argument about procreation still stands, in that propogation of society is a compelling state interest.

I also think it unwise, given the conventional wisdom that a child is typically brought up by a mother and a father, that we encourage a social policy that denies children these developmental necessities.

I don't expect you to agree with them, but there are non-moral arguments on the anti-gay-marriage side.

Your "non" moral arguments are totally wacko!
So you claim that by allowing gay marrages that the propogation of the species will not continue to happen? That`s false and you know it!

You also believe that having a mother and a father are a developemental necessitie?
That`s also false. Many children are brought up by single parents. Many children are brought up by "gay" parents. None of these children coming from these backgrounds have developemental issues.

I really don`t see any basis other than possibly trying to disguise your hatred of "gays" as the reason behind your statements that you cannot back up with facts. I am sure if you search hard enough you can find a blog site or something on the fringes that might support your claims. But you will not find any mainstream non - religious sites that support your assertions!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why doesnt the state fix the situation by not allowing direct democracy? Referendums imo are troublesome on any level. Our system of govt is representative. Referendums are how mob rule can force their will on the people. <--well put!!
I also believe in a way politicians like these referendums. Because it absolves them of having to make the tough decisions and face voter reaction. It is a pussy's way out of having to do ones own job.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Thoughts on surrogacy: (And no, I'm not comparing gay marriage to beastiality)

A man and a horse could bear children through surrogacy. The ability to produce children by external means does not mean your marriage has produced children.

wat?

Never underestimate the power of bigots to rationalize.

so very true!!!

 

[RabidMongoose]

I walked by the CA Supreme Court building today and there are already about 10 Yes on 8 protesters from Utah there.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Or to be blind to how totally absurd they are.

That is also very true!!
The reason being they honestly believe they are the only ones who are right!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

But he casually discounts other groups that would also fail to disqualify for marriage, like the elderly. His argument was flawed.

I personally have a freind who knows that guy who wrote the article.
The guy who wrote the article is totally looney tunes!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Jiggz
So how did this proposition made it to the ballots? If it was so illegal, no time and efforts should have been wasted in campaigning and voting for this stupid proposition. Or is it illegal because it did not support gay expectations?

To make a long story shorter, the California Supreme Court only ruled that marriage was a fundamental Constitutional right under the state constitution after the Proposition was already set to be on the ballot. Prior to legally establishing this, a Proposition would have been sufficient for sure legally, but afterwards it became questionable whether merely a proposition procedure was sufficient to overturn that component of what the California Supreme Court had ruled was part of the Constitution.

I don't remember for certain if this came up legally, but if it did, the courts ruled they would still allow the Proposition on the ballot and decide if it was legal afterwards, which is the common way to handle such situations. (Among other things its always easier on the courts if they can find a viable way to avoid having to make a controversial ruling, as long as they still effectively accomplish what they feel they need to judicially.)

There are actually a number ways the Court could theoretically rule based on this new situation, including deciding since the new proposition did not directly address the Constitutional fundamental right for gays to marry people of the same sex, (the measure merely says that the State of California would only recognize marriage between a man and a woman) the new state of the constitution left an unequal situation discriminating against gay rights and the only solution would be to refuse to recognize all marriages in California. In practice there is obvious no way on earth they would rule this way due to the chaos it would cause, but the legal theory behind it is actually quite sound. (A slightly more plausible ruling of this type could conceivably classify all marriages in California as Civil Unions in response to the new Proposition and resolving the potential Constitutional conflict.)

Very well said!
I am very involved in this issue and we had an attorney adress this issue in the citie where I live. You just touched the tip of the iceberg. This can and does get very complicated really quick.

Thank You for putting the issue into laymans terms!!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is a state supreme court decision we are talking about here, not the federal court where any such appeal would have to be taken, no?

Yes, it is a state Supreme Court decision. Why would that be in federal court? It's like the MA state Supreme Court decision that found the MA constitution required equal protection.

This case is being heard in the CA Supreme Court. I know of no federal grounds for it to be appealed on.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess in California they can just throw out the voice of their people. This means the law means nothing in California.

I need a macro for right-wingers who don't understand the concept of constitutional rights and the supermajorities needed to change those rights. The ignorance is appalling.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I walked by the CA Supreme Court building today and there are already about 10 Yes on 8 protesters from Utah there.

Man do those people fucking amaze me. They are actually taking the time out of their lives to travel to support their hateful views in front of our CA Supreme Court building. Just fucking ridiculous.

Who's down to startup a proposition that revokes the tax exempt status from religious institutions? They have no problem crossing over the separation of church and state boundary to spend millions of untaxed money to deny the rights of a minority group. I think its about time that they suffer some consequences for this.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess in California they can just throw out the voice of their people. This means the law means nothing in California.

I need a macro for right-wingers who don't understand the concept of constitutional rights and the supermajorities needed to change those rights. The ignorance is appalling.

It's not just right-wingers that don't understand Constitutional rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.

Thank you for your input, but I'd prefer it if you addressed my arguments, instead of personal attacks.

You have no arguments, as I stated. That is exactly your problem. What you present are rationalizations of your bigotry. You can't give a single rational reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry. You are a bigot. If that offends you stop being one. I can't change the fact that you are a bigot any more than I can change the fact the sky is blue. I didn't attack you, I just stated what you are. Any negative interpretation you place on that is your own. I have to assume you just don't like bigots, regardless of the fact you are one. Naturally, however, like all bigots, you can't see who you are so your schizophrenia is normal as with all bigots. And I feel it is a perfect exchange. In your world homosexuals won't be allowed to have the highest form of sacred monogamous relationship, and in my world you will be relieved of your balls. If you can see what an asshole I am, welcome to a vision of yourself.

Dude, seriously, the one who sounds bigoted is you. Relax.

Why should I? I like the idea of afflicting the comfortable as much as comforting the afflicted. Your bigotry multiplied by millions results in the mental anguish and suffering of millions more. Why should you get a free ride? If you want to express bigotry and I'm around you will have to pay the price. You don't see that what you think matters, that bigotry is killing our world.

Then you are among the killers. You are no less bigoted than anyone you so righteously accuse of it.

Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

 

[OrByte]

cal channel

Streaming the CA Supreme Court hearing right now.

my goodness this court is extremely intimidating. I have much respect for the lawyers going in front of this court.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

Well in your opinion the proposition is unconstitutional. Eventually we'll see if it is. You are still missing the point. The system as it stands now allows people to in effect vote the law. Either the system changes or it's invalid on the face of it. The only people who are qualified to determine if a law is Constitutional is the judiciary. Precisely when was this categorically struck down by the courts? I'm not endorsing the proposition BTW. I think it's stupid. I just think that the ridiculousness of the whole prop system hasn't struck people- yet.

To pass an amendment to the California Constitution you need a 2/3`s vote.....
So why should a group of people be able to draw up a proposition that in effect amends the constitution and be able to pass the "propostion" with only a majority vote.

I understand that Calif is messed up in that way. I am just making a statement!

Peace!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: OrByte
cal channel

Streaming the CA Supreme Court hearing right now.

my goodness this court is extremely intimidating. I have much respect for the lawyers going in front of this court.

Thx for that link!!

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

Atreus, you don't want gays to marry because you think homos are icky. I don't see how you can keep arguing here when you started with that premise. It's analogous to saying "I think women are dumb so they shouldn't get to vote," and then expecting to advance any sort of argument you posit (legit or not) about why women shouldn't vote to be fairly heard. There isn't one argument we can make to convince you gays aren't icky, so because that's your bottom line against their marriage, why bother making arguments?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You haven't addressed a single argument about how you feel about fertile couples who wish to marry but not reproduce, how you feel about adoption, how you feel about divorce, how preventing gays from marrying would stop the spread of HIV or how preventing gays from marrying would increase reproduction. You seem to be in a mood to address arguments, so let's hear what you have to say to those.

 

[winnar111]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.




OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

Like what? They're either going to let Prop 8 stand, or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, how about we wait until they actually rule to see as opposed to trying to read the tea leaves of oral arguments. Then again, you're Winnar, so you doing stupid things like this is pretty normal isn't it?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, how about we wait until they actually rule to see as opposed to trying to read the tea leaves of oral arguments. Then again, you're Winnar, so you doing stupid things like this is pretty normal isn't it?

After watching the proceedings (fascinating too btw) I have to say that it is very clear how Justice Kennard is going to argue. As for the other Justices, it is way too early to tell.

But Justice Kennard was absolutely brutal out there today. And as I understand it, Justice Kennard was on the consenting side last year to allow Gays to marry, it didn't look like it today.

I agree with the poster above, the Ca SC is going to come up with a Decision that will lack finality. I think it is clear that they do not wish to invalidate the 18,000 or so gay couples that are already wed. How that plays out, at this point, is anyone's guess.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I agree with the poster above, the Ca SC is going to come up with a Decision that will lack finality. I think it is clear that they do not wish to invalidate the 18,000 or so gay couples that are already wed. How that plays out, at this point, is anyone's guess.

You even had one of the judges who had previously not supported the previous 4-3 ruling making gay marriage legal express great concerns about the implications of now declaring those marriages invalid or unrecognized, and that is in addition to the 4 more liberal judges expressing great concerns in that area.

It seems pretty certain that the court is going to rule that Proposition 8 is not retroactive so the 18,000 marriages already performed stay legal, and it seems extremely unlikely that will change in the future. (With any future court challenges the argument that suddenly invalidating the marriages would cause chaos becomes even more compelling.)

Most likely we're talking about a ruling which will have effective legal finality for the moment, but long term obviously there is the potential to overturn Proposition 8 with a new ballot measure as it becomes obvious the existing 18,000 marriages are not doing anyone any harm.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, how about we wait until they actually rule to see as opposed to trying to read the tea leaves of oral arguments. Then again, you're Winnar, so you doing stupid things like this is pretty normal isn't it?

Saved for later so I can bump this thread.