Prop 8

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Ns1
I see your point, but why does is the government in ANY position to tell who you can and can't marry in the first place?

IN THEORY...... government is there to serve the people. If the people want to put limitations on marriage, and they go through the proper channels, the gov't kinda HAS to enforce it.

The way I see it, gov't really isn't to blame here. It's not like the State Legislature forced this down anyone's throats. It was a voter Proposition.

Personally, I have no vested interest in Prop 8. I'm not a Californian. I'm not gay. I have lots of gay friends (one of my Groomsmen was my bisexual lady friend from college). I'm not religious. I just find the dynamic of the process interesting.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: Antny6

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That is the basis of my argument. California (I'm assuming) has some equal protection clause/amendment in its constitution that this new passed law is in direct conflict with. It will be heard and any sensible judge would rule against it.

That's exactly what California has, an equal protection clause. It's the same clause that caused the CA Supreme Court to rule against the last proposition that tried to ban gay marriage. Prop 22, I believe.

And for whomever was asking if it's retroactive, I do not believe that it can retroactively affect those who have already been married.

The difference is that Prop 8 is an amendment to the CA Constitution. None of the other measures were amendments, they were laws.

If Prop 8 is in fact passed, the effect will likely be this: The CA Constitution Equal Protection clause will state "Everyone has rights, blah, blah, blah..." Then later on the Constitution will say "This has been Amended to remove the ability for homosexuals to marry from the Equal protection Clause."

Considering that the Prop initially went before the CA Supreme Court and they rejected it as misleading, then it was reworded by the Atty General, then the CASC affirmed the Prop, I don't see them later ruling on it. Again, it is NOT in conflict with the CA Constitution, it CHANGES the CA Constitution.

Also, the wording it has is something to the effect of "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", which means that the prior legal marriages would be null and void, as would other unions performed in other states.

The fact that the proposition changes the CA Constitution could become an issue in itself. One question that could be brought to the CA Supreme Court is whether or not Prop 8 revises or amends the Constitution.

If it revises the constitution, then it didn't follow the proper procedure for ratification of a revision. A revision to the state constitution can only be proposed via a 2/3 vote in the legislature or via a constitutional convention.

Prior to the court decision last May, I would have said that the prop was a straight forward amendment (didn't really have any impact on current interpretation of the law, just clarified it), but once the court determined that prop 22 was unconstitutional and that the right to marriage should be extended to same sex couples, it seems to me that Prop 8 is now a revision.

There was a suit filed before the California Supreme Court to remove the Prop from the ballot. What you are saying was actually one of the arguments that was used: that it was a a revision and not a mere amendment and therefore could not be put in place through an initiative.

The suit was dismissed.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Pop quiz.

How many states recognize same sex marriage?

How many nations recognize same sex marriage?

I will answer your questions by posing two more of my own:

Do you consider America to be on the forefront of liberty in the world?

If yes, why would you want to compare it to the rest of the world and insist that it's "good enough"?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Ns1
I see your point, but why does is the government in ANY position to tell who you can and can't marry in the first place?

IN THEORY...... government is there to serve the people. If the people want to put limitations on marriage, and they go through the proper channels, the gov't kinda HAS to enforce it.

The way I see it, gov't really isn't to blame here. It's not like the State Legislature forced this down anyone's throats. It was a voter Proposition.

Personally, I have no vested interest in Prop 8. I'm not a Californian. I'm not gay. I have lots of gay friends (one of my Groomsmen was my bisexual lady friend from college). I'm not religious. I just find the dynamic of the process interesting.

In theory, the will of the people cannot trample on the rights of the minority.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511


In theory, the will of the people cannot trample on the rights of the minority.

Very true. IN PRACTICE, it happens all the time, unfortunately.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Originally posted by: abaez
He also does not support amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriages.

Wrong. He supports letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

You say abaez is wrong, but your response has nothing to do with what he said. Abaez said Obama is against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. That is unequivocally true. See below.

You then state Obama believes each state has the right to make up it's mind. Well sure, but that doesn't mean he supports an outcome of banning.

Do you see your error here?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...1/obama-on-prop-8.html

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that's not what America is about."

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Brainonska511


In theory, the will of the people cannot trample on the rights of the minority.

Very true. IN PRACTICE, it happens all the time, unfortunately.

Unfortunately. That's why we have courts to try and balance it out, but even then, they sometimes fail (or when they succeed, you get a bunch of chicken littles bitching about the evil activist judges trampling on the rights of the majority to crush the rights of the minority).

 

[Jschmuck2]

Question in the summary:

If gays can't get married - well, what should they do now? Feel "lucky" that they got the civil union bone tossed to them and be happy with it?

---------------------------------------
Merge Point

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[fskimospy]

No, just keep fighting and be patient. Gay marriage will be legal in the US, it's only a matter of time.

 

[sactoking]

Long term? Try to campaign for an 'Anti-Prop 8' Proposition would have to be priority #1 I think.
Short term? Dunno, I'm not a good strategist.

 

[Arkaign]

Boil them in oil!

 

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Originally posted by: abaez
He also does not support amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriages.

Wrong. He supports letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

You say abaez is wrong, but your response has nothing to do with what he said. Abaez said Obama is against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. That is unequivocally true. See below.

You then state Obama believes each state has the right to make up it's mind. Well sure, but that doesn't mean he supports an outcome of banning.

Do you see your error here?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...1/obama-on-prop-8.html

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that's not what America is about."

How does this statement:

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that's not what America is about."

Jive with his previous statement of:

letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

Looks like he's riding the fence to me.

 

[yllus]

Use the courts, I think. This is a case of tyranny of the majority and thus isn't one to be won easily via the popular vote.

 

[OCGuy]

From what I hear, marriage isnt all the great anyway. Maybe they were done a favor.

 

[nageov3t]

join atheists and muslims to form a pity party of people who will never be elected potus in our lifetimes?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: loki8481
join atheists and muslims to form a pity party of people who will never be elected potus in our lifetimes?

don't forget the asians.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, just keep fighting and be patient. Gay marriage will be legal in the US, it's only a matter of time.

Sadly, this.

Blacks fought for how many decades just to use the same bathroom as whites? And how many centuries before that simply to not be considered property? Marriage equality is inevitable, Will & Grace made it so. The injection into our culture of well adjusted openly gay people will slowly force the opposition to lose. Every child than is now able to come out to their parents is another beloved patriot in the armor.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: chrisho

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage:

Neither do his supporters, minorities voted nearly 7 to 3 for this ban. An interesting dilemma.

Not really. My black friends growing up didn't like making gay jokes or 'lispy' voices or other silly stuff either. Not surprised the voting broke the way it did at all.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: loki8481
join atheists and muslims to form a pity party of people who will never be elected potus in our lifetimes?

I voted for a Muslim for the U.S. House in the election! Keith Ellison won over 70% of the vote.

If certain people are to be believed, I actually may have voted for TWO Muslims :Q

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think he's basically saying that he doesn't personally believe in it or "like" it, but that he doesn't think it should be made illegal. Basically, it's not his place to tell other people whether they can be married or not.

Sort of like how many (most?) pro-choice people see abortion. Obama probably dislikes abortion more than most people, but he's still pro-choice because he feels it's not his place to decide.

 

[Ozoned]

procreate. There is strength in numbers. That is what the rest of us do.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

How does this statement:

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that's not what America is about."

Jive with his previous statement of:

letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

Looks like he's riding the fence to me.

He's saying this:

1. States, and not the federal gov't, should determine whether to ban gay marriage within their jurisdiction.

2. I personally hope that no state does choose to ban it and would not vote in favor of such a proposition on a ballot.

it's not really that fine a distinction he's making here

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Antny6

Originally posted by: senseamp
What opponents of gay marriage will accomplish eventually is what they are fighting: undermining of the institution of marriage. By defining "marriage" in a discriminatory fashion and then asking states to reconcile it with anti-discriminatory equal protection clauses will eventually force some states to give up on state recognition of marriage in favor of recognition of civil unions, leaving marriage as no longer a state institution, only a religious one.

I don't think most gay marriage opponents would see that as a bad thing, or at least wouldn't after talking themselves off the ledge. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a religious institution with recognition by the state. I've tried to explain the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage enough times to enough people to realize that the concept goes over most peoples' heads.

My own mother, who was married by a justice of the peace at city hall, is insistent that her marriage is religious in nature and her marriage license is just legal documentation of that religious union.

They will care when their religious marriage has no legal standing whatsoever and they have to go in front of a judge or some other governmental official delegated the authority to hand them their Official [insert state here] Civil Union application if they want any legally recognizable rights to property or other benefits shared by married couples today.

 

[Baked]

Compete w/ the church for rights to violate children.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Baked
Compete w/ the church for rights to violate children.

do you CTRL + v to save time?