You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 11:31:35 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Prop 8 struck down.  (Read 18737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2010, 11:44:34 PM »
Whether or not marriage is covered under civil rights is also subjective.  There aren't any national laws that declare marriage a right; the only way that this is a civil rights issue is by extension and interpretation of other laws.  You can stretch equal protection under the law within the fourteenth amendment to put together a case, but it's not deductive by any stretch of the imagination.  I believe the argument you're making is:

"The fourteenth amendment requires that the government not discriminate against minorities.  Homosexuals are a minority.  Heterosexuals can marry their significant others, but homosexuals cannot, therefore the federal government is discriminating against homosexuals, and homosexuals should be allowed to marry."

The problem is, that's based on interpretation of interpretation of careful wording.  One could easily reach a different conclusion using semantics:

"The fourteenth amendment requires that the government not discriminate against minorities.  Homosexuals are a minority.  Heterosexuals are allowed to marry, as are homosexuals."  The key here being, that marriage is defined in the traditional sense of a union between a man and a woman (which is enshrined in law now thanks to President Clinton and the Republican Congress of 1996) where a homosexual wouldn't want to marry because they're not attracted to the opposite sex (but they could if they wanted to).  You certainly can't deny that there is a longstanding definition of marriage as that, which the majority of the society agrees with and adheres to.

Personally I think that all of that is a meaningless attempt to sidestep the debate, but I think in more utilitarian terms.  I don't think that there's a good reason intrinsic to the action for not allowing gays to marry when you break it down to pros and cons.  A lot of the fear over it is completely unfounded and based on absolutely nothing other than basic human bigotry and aversion to difference.

Sadly, for as much as I'd like to see it change, I recognize that people don't take well to having minority opinions forced on the majority.  I look at abortion and see how horribly that mandate went considering we're still debating it all these years later (and the majority opinion is still in favor of more control over abortion).  I think of all of the things conservatives want done, and imagine that they could probably find loose justifications in the constitution for it, and think about how horrifying the prospect of having them force prayer in school on the entire country or something equally as abominable.

If you have respect for Democracy, you have to have respect for Democracy always, not just when you agree with the conclusion it reaches.  Either you have faith that the majority will eventually get it right, or give up all pretenses of support for popular opinion in all forms.

I agree that it's great that this was passed if things work out; honestly, if the educated few can actually teach the masses to be more socially progressive with jurisprudence and philosophical argument, I'm all for it.  But I just watched the Mama Grizzlies video put out by Sarah Palin again, so I suppose my outlook is very grim.

EDIT:  And if you want to see how murky the waters really are, check out the actual equal protection clause:

Quote from: 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 11:49:07 PM by Jude »

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2010, 12:00:38 AM »
And, in line with Trieste's quote, those who oppose homosexuality don't have to view your acceptance of it positively, either.

And what's more, it seems to me that you're "us vs. them"-ing me, too. I've stated very clearly that I am with "you", that I'm on the side of the gay rights activists, that I agree entirely, and yet I still have managed to feel alienated by the black or white setting presented simply because it's off-putting to see a group of people who are so "open-minded" acting so narrow and saying incredibly hypocritical things while wondering why people do it to them. If someone who supports the same things you do is being turned off by the dialogue and attitude, it's no secret how those who don't agree must feel. Wondering why people don't feel the way you do and then simultaneously rejecting trying to understand their point of view is pretty much a self-perpetuating problem.

And on another note, this isn't a thread in the "good and cuddly" section, this is a thread in politics and religion. If you're not willing to discuss it as a political issue, then you may consider remaking this thread in the appropriate place where you don't have to talk about such things.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2010, 12:16:41 AM »
Just a note here - it was just over 50 years ago that miscegenation laws were still on the books, and it took a Supreme Court intervention to get those struck down.  (Loving v. VA) True, some people of my mother's generation still have their heads up their butts about that, and there will probably always be people that don't accept it.  The law isn't saying 'you have to like/accept it', but 'you don't have the right to prevent it.'

Offline Host of Seraphim

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2010, 12:34:03 AM »
I really don't understand where you are coming from, Noelle. I don't see how anything I have said could come across as an us vs. them attitude, although I did mention that I can understand why some individuals would have such an attitude. The only thing I have said is that people who are very opposed to gay rights simply will not be swayed. It's a very deep-rooted issue that I have never, in my experience, seen anyone who believed strongly in the matter change their mind about it.

I also don't understand why you are expecting people to be open-minded about a mindset that involves the oppression of other people.

Quote
And on another note, this isn't a thread in the "good and cuddly" section, this is a thread in politics and religion. If you're not willing to discuss it as a political issue, then you may consider remaking this thread in the appropriate place where you don't have to talk about such things.

I do, however, understand this. You are right; this is not a good and cuddly thread. This is obviously a cause I am very passionate about, and in my emotions I tend to lose sight of things. And because of those emotions, I'll refrain from posting here anymore.

...but not before I post one more Picard gif to express how happy I am that Prop 8's been overturned.  ;D


Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2010, 12:35:59 AM »
If it's any consolation I think it's awesome that people are so happy about it and I don't mean to rain on your parade in any way shape or form.  I really really wish homosexuals could marry and face no social stigma whatsoever (same deal with people who identify with no gender whatsoever).  My objections are purely process based; I'd be every bit as happy as you are now if this was passed by a majority vote.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2010, 12:48:39 AM »
I also don't understand why you are expecting people to be open-minded about a mindset that involves the oppression of other people.

Because you can't ask for open-mindedness and not show some in return. Even if you don't sway anybody and they don't sway anybody, it's not always about winners or losers -- it's not even about the most extreme, it's about understanding what motivates those who oppose you and understanding that, much like those who are for gay rights, they can't all be put under the same umbrella.

My main point is that for those with the burning question of "why don't they see the way I do," the answer lies in trying to understand where the other side comes from, I'm not asserting that you have to agree or that anybody will change their mind, but that perhaps it will become more apparent of how to deal with these people that don't agree because you know what motivates their attitudes. Shutting them down (and I'm not targeting just you specifically) and making them all out to be horrible human beings is only doing the damage that has been already done, in reverse, because within that group that may have voted against it are people that may be more sympathetic to your cause than you realize. Besides -- those who voted for gay marriage may also oppose homosexual behavior, but for equality.

Ultimately, I am with Jude on this one. It's not to rain on anybody's parade -- on the very surface level of it all, I am happy to see it be overturned, and I will be interested to see the appeals process, and if it gets ugly. My posts aren't to bring down the occasion, merely addressing the attitudes within that I see as problematic to the want to further gay rights.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 12:49:41 AM by Noelle »

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2010, 01:17:39 AM »
I can really only say Yay! Im happy that it got overturned but at the same time Im a bit unhappy. Its one thing to overturn an inhumane law (or what I consider inhumane in the context that it takes away rights that people should have). However at the same time Im a bit upset that when the voting process happens and the majority makes its decision the minority gets it overturned.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2010, 05:38:16 AM »
The Constitution is there to defend the minority FROM the majority sometimes that is the role of the courts to make sure in principle if your disadvantaged you have a place to go. That is why the traditional statue of justice is blindfolded, with the scales of justice and the book of the law its the neutral arbitration that is at least ,in theory, unbiased and fair to all. That justice itself is a force.

I would simply point out with this case now heading to the next step if it stands the Supreme Court will have to hear the case and make a final hard choice on gay marriage, I hope they keep the current decision in place.


Offline Remiel

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2010, 01:03:24 PM »
Not to rain on everybody's parade, but I wouldn't start celebrating just yet.  If this ruling is challenged -- and it almost certainly will be -- it will have to go to the Federal Courts of Appeals, and then possibly to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court could very well overturn the District Court's ruling, and then we'll be right back where we started.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2010, 01:57:17 PM »
It was a legal process that overturned it, so I don't see why it's questionable.  There's a reason we have courts that can overturn these laws.  It's the separation of powers.  The majority of the country is represented by congress, state and federal, but we have the executive and judicial branches to keep the masses in check.  It seems like it worked here. :P

I'm sure a lot of people were enraged when the Supreme Court ruled for desegregation.  Was that a bad idea?  Should we have just waited around for another 20-30 years until everybody was all smiles about the idea?  What if that had just left the problem deeper ingrained and harder to change?  Some things just need to happen, and if people don't like it, then... well, tough shit.

I'm sure there are a lot of middle-aged gay couples that would like to get married within their lifetimes. : /

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #60 on: August 05, 2010, 02:07:45 PM »
I don't disagree with the majority of what you've said Will, except that it was a court decision that brought prop 8 in to begin with. If it got overturned again, I doubt people would be so moderate about saying "well, the court said so, guess that's just how it is!" Just look at the abortion issue. Decades after Roe v Wade, it's still a big-ticket issue for politicians.

Offline Gwynevere

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2010, 02:10:56 PM »
I'm sure there are a lot of middle-aged gay couples that would like to get married within their lifetimes. : /

I know a lot of middle-aged gay couples personally, that would like to get married. Not only that, but there are a lot of elderly gay couples that have been together 40, 50 or more years, that would like to get married as well.

Offline Silk

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2010, 02:20:37 PM »

These aren't issues that can be resolved today. Change takes time. Change takes work and effort, education. I see little of that one either side.


Generally because there is quite a few "educational" standards that are trying against same sex marraige as well as those supporting it. What good is teaching someone somewhere that something is good if there only going to hear that its bad somewhere else.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #63 on: August 05, 2010, 05:14:27 PM »
Not to rain on everybody's parade, but I wouldn't start celebrating just yet.  If this ruling is challenged -- and it almost certainly will be -- it will have to go to the Federal Courts of Appeals, and then possibly to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court could very well overturn the District Court's ruling, and then we'll be right back where we started.

Not exactly the Supreme Court sets national precedents for all courts if they rule against it it will kill the debate pretty much that gays have the same rights to marry as hetrosexual couples and force it into a lesser status such as civil unions. If they uphold it it will pretty much demand that no state could discriminate and must allow homosexual marriage setting a Federal protection in place that would be pretty well law of the land.

If this upheld in the appeals it will have to go to the Supreme Court this would set a standard of all states West of the Rockies required to marry gays and the rest of the nation that don't that would have to be settled in the high court likely in 2013.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2010, 05:59:29 PM »
Yes, change comes with education, but you also had the courts ordering the desegregation of schools and whatnot. Sometimes, people have to be forced to take the first step towards acceptance.
Think like I do or I'll make you? Not very democratic.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #65 on: August 05, 2010, 06:04:17 PM »
Think like I do or I'll make you? Not very democratic.

And yet it's happened multiple times in America's history, with good reason.

Offline schnookums

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2010, 06:11:49 PM »
There are many undemocratic protections built into the constitution. Think freedom of speech was meant to protect, say, speech that the majority are quite fine with? While that could come up, freedoms like that are guaranteed DESPITE the will of the majority.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2010, 06:12:21 PM »
And yet it's happened multiple times in America's history, with good reason.
It's also how the Vietnam War started and the American Civil War started, and Prohibition. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for homosexual rights, I don't think it's going to be the bastion of utter perdition that some people make it out to be. It's pretty fifty-fifty that greater good thing. That's all I'm saying.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 06:13:53 PM by Inkidu »

Offline Remiel

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #68 on: August 05, 2010, 06:21:12 PM »
Generally speaking, I'm cheered not so much by the fact that the proposition was overturned by a judge (I can already hear the conservative pundits now, decrying "rule by judicial fiat" and "abuse of power") but that the proposition passed by such a slim margin in the first place.

I think it's only a matter of time before gays and lesbians enjoy civil parity.  It's just a question of whether that change occurs sooner rather than later.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #69 on: August 05, 2010, 06:24:34 PM »
Chances in the SCOTUS just got a little better.

Kagan confirmed to Supreme Court

I'm hoping the change happens sooner.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2010, 12:10:42 AM »
It was a legal process that overturned it, so I don't see why it's questionable.  There's a reason we have courts that can overturn these laws.  It's the separation of powers.  The majority of the country is represented by congress, state and federal, but we have the executive and judicial branches to keep the masses in check.  It seems like it worked here. :P

I'm sure a lot of people were enraged when the Supreme Court ruled for desegregation.  Was that a bad idea?  Should we have just waited around for another 20-30 years until everybody was all smiles about the idea?  What if that had just left the problem deeper ingrained and harder to change?  Some things just need to happen, and if people don't like it, then... well, tough shit.

I'm sure there are a lot of middle-aged gay couples that would like to get married within their lifetimes. : /

If we allow the courts to overturn whatever they want then whats the use of voting in the first place? Thats kind of where Im coming from. Now Im not looking at this from a human rights point of view (I am glad it was overturned because I consider it a basic human right), Im looking at it from a down the road point of view.

I just think that theres a problem with a minority group stopping the will of the majority to take place. Now obviously, like in this case, there are going to be things that are overturned and should be overturned but I think it sets a dangerous precedent of the future.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2010, 12:20:14 AM »
*shrugs* I can't say you're wrong, not with any real conviction.  But I think there is a choice to be made there.  Set a bad precedent and possibly cause trouble later, or right a wrong now?

And I'm not sure I'd call it a bad precedent.  Why do we even vote?  Because it matters.  Courts don't overturn every single law that gets put on the books, so by and large, your votes still matter hugely.  And regardless, judges and justices have been overturning laws and legislating from the bench for quite some time now, so if any precedent was going to be set, it was done a long time ago.  We depend on the character and integrity of our justices to keep them from abusing their power.  I can't say I really like it, but it's worked so far.

Offline schnookums

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2010, 12:23:47 AM »
But the majority doesn't get to ignore Constitutional law. This ruling wasn't saying 'the hell with the majority', it was saying 'what the majority voted as law was unconstitutional'. If they have a problem with that...well, there are processes involved to amend the Constitution. I for one am quite fine with the precedent being set that the majority don't get to ignore the supreme law of the land with impunity. Given the fickle nature of the crowd, I'm fine with some things being much harder to achieve then with a simple majority.

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2010, 12:44:42 AM »
But the majority doesn't get to ignore Constitutional law. This ruling wasn't saying 'the hell with the majority', it was saying 'what the majority voted as law was unconstitutional'. If they have a problem with that...well, there are processes involved to amend the Constitution. I for one am quite fine with the precedent being set that the majority don't get to ignore the supreme law of the land with impunity. Given the fickle nature of the crowd, I'm fine with some things being much harder to achieve then with a simple majority.
Well, yes, I agree that voters shouldn't be able to completely ignore the supreme law of the land in making new laws, but that's not what's going on here at all.  The California Supreme Court decided on its own that marriage should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples, going against long-established tradition to change law the law in California without the consent of voters.  Many voters were upset by this revisionist move, and Prop 8 was born, which passed, returning things to the way they were before (all it did was undo the legal precedent set by the California Supreme Court).  Repealing Prop 8 is essentially repealing the repeal of a legal tradition of marriage between a man and a woman; this is not a case of the majority moving to suddenly contradict its own laws in enacting new discriminatory policy.  Furthermore, the legal case is anything but transparent and obvious (as I've detailed in a previous post).

I'd be all for a higher court striking down new legislative ambitions, if that was the case, but this is a situation of progression not regression.

EDIT:  As far as all of the comparisons to desegregation goes, I'm not so sure that around the time of Brown v Board of Education the majority of the country wasn't for desegregation (which is a key component of the comparison people are submitting as an argument).  There are other factors which make the situation very different:  1)  Religion is a central component here, where in the race issue on a few people tried to make it part of the situation but there was a lack of concrete religious dogma supporting racism (in fact religion played a crucial role in the civil rights movement -- even Phelps of the WBC approved of and aided that cause)  2)  The cause was practically ancient, so those who argued for force in that "the other side isn't listening" actually had quite a history to point to.  Gay activism isn't even 50 years old in earnest.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 01:06:24 AM by Jude »

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2010, 01:10:40 AM »
No not exactly. Think aboutit, for this to be put in place it would have already had to have been reviewed right? WHy wasnt this ruled unconstitutional 2 years ago when the bill was first put on the ballet or shortly after it was voted on? I find it odd that it took 2 years to make this ruling rather then the supreme court stepping in when it first appeared on the ballet and noting that it was unconstitutional

Its almost like the minority can hold the majority hostage if that makes any sense

Perhaps I would feel better if I acctually got to vote which justices can stand on the superme court, but I dont