It does violate the article 1 inalienable rights.
No matter what George Will or the majority of motivated Californians say. You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

Hobodeluxe: It does violate the article 1 inalienable rights.
No matter what George Will or the majority of motivated Californians say. You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

This.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

That.

And just for good measure: source is RealClearPropaganda. Way to push the agenda, closeted homomitter.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

Hey! I think I just came up with a solution to our immigration problem!

Occam's Chainsaw: Hobodeluxe: It does violate the article 1 inalienable rights.
No matter what George Will or the majority of motivated Californians say. You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

This.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

That.

And just for good measure: source is RealClearPropaganda. Way to push the agenda, closeted homomitter.

those

chemical_angel: Occam's Chainsaw: Hobodeluxe: It does violate the article 1 inalienable rights.
No matter what George Will or the majority of motivated Californians say. You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

This.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

That.

And just for good measure: source is RealClearPropaganda. Way to push the agenda, closeted homomitter.

those

They.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.


The recourse would be to proceed under the US Constitution as that California amendment would violate the 13th amendment.

Well, if we don't like laws we just ignore them. We don't change them by due process anymore. We either outright ignore them (immigration) or we get Judges to invalidate the will of the people.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

BritneysSpeculum: The recourse would be to proceed under the US Constitution as that California amendment would violate the 13th amendment.

And a same-sex ban on marriage violates the 14th Amendment. Good luck getting that past any number of judges who side with the Talibangicals.

GaryPDX: Well, if we don't like laws we just ignore them. We don't change them by due process anymore. We either outright ignore them (immigration) or we get Judges to invalidate the will of the people.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

Heller -vs- DC. That knife cuts both ways.

GaryPDX: The Founders are rolling in their graves.

Yes, because the slave-owning wife-beating Founders were all about letting minorities have rights.

It was the law before Prop 8. And Prop 8 doesn't represent the will of the people. It represents the will of the churchies who funded and executed the campaign against it.

Occam's Chainsaw: And a same-sex ban on marriage violates the 14th Amendment. Good luck getting that past any number of judges who side with the Talibangicals.

I am still not sure that I see the equal protection argument given the current state of equal protection jurisprudence. Sexual orientation has not yet been deemed to be a suspect class, so the analysis would be rational relationship. I think that a court would likely consider the "preservation of the tradition of marriage" to be rationally related to the ban on same sex marriage. Please note that I am not passing on the legitimacy of that argument but instead am just commenting on what I believe the the current state of the law to be.

GaryPDX: Well, if we don't like laws we just ignore them. We don't change them by due process anymore. We either outright ignore them (immigration) or we get Judges to invalidate the will of the people.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

Of course this also ignores the part that to amend the state constitution also requires a vote of the legislature, something that has not happened here

El_Frijole_Blanco: Of course this also ignores the part that to amend the state constitution also requires a vote of the legislature, something that has not happened here

Is that true of California? It's not in Florida. Ballot initiatives can be used to circumvent the state legislature and directly amend. It's nuts.

Why not cut the Gordian knot and ask: what the hell is government doing involved at these private and personal levels of our lives?

GaryPDX: Well, if we don't like laws we just ignore them. We don't change them by due process anymore. We either outright ignore them (immigration) or we get Judges to invalidate the will of the people.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

You know, I happen to agree with you that laws on the book should always be enforced, and changed only through the correct legislative methods. I want to see this law changed, but changed legally, and it should be enforced in the meantime.

On the other hand, where were you when your team spent the last 8 years 1) ignoring any business or environmental regulation they deemed inconvenient, 2)ignoring Congressional subpoenas, 3) making up whatever new executive powers they wanted, 4) spying on anyone they wanted to spy on for whatever reason? I mean seriously, you have far less than no leg to stand on here.

El_Frijole_Blanco: Of course this also ignores the part that to amend the state constitution also requires a vote of the legislature, something that has not happened here

Not under the California constitution. It permits direct citizen amendments via initiative.

Here you go:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
(e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political subdivision.
(f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.

Baby steps, it's all part of the process.

Diogenes: El_Frijole_Blanco: Of course this also ignores the part that to amend the state constitution also requires a vote of the legislature, something that has not happened here

Is that true of California? It's not in Florida. Ballot initiatives can be used to circumvent the state legislature and directly amend. It's nuts.

Yep, same in CA. It can be amended by either initiative or legislature. Hopefully, this situation, along with the CA budget shenanigans, might motivate the legislatures to actually do something and call a new Constitutional convention.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=03678928900+2+0+0&wais actio n=retrieve (new window)

vossiewulf: On the other hand, where were you when your team spent the last 8 years 1) ignoring any business or environmental regulation they deemed inconvenient, 2)ignoring Congressional subpoenas, 3) making up whatever new executive powers they wanted, 4) spying on anyone they wanted to spy on for whatever reason? I mean seriously, you have far less than no leg to stand on here.

But they were keeping us safe from tiger attacks!

Seriously, were you attacked by tigers in the last 8 years?

Didn't think so.

vossiewulf: On the other hand, where were you when your team spent the last 8 years 1) ignoring any business or environmental regulation they deemed inconvenient, 2)ignoring Congressional subpoenas, 3) making up whatever new executive powers they wanted, 4) spying on anyone they wanted to spy on for whatever reason? I mean seriously, you have far less than no leg to stand on here.

Well, about half of that is warrrgarbl koolaid and the other half, like spying and making shiat up, I've been right here railing against it for 6 years. Now I know people have a hard time remembering because we've had wall to wall Liberal wharrgarble for at least the last 18 months. BTW, I voted for Gore the first time and as bad as BushCo was, Kerry would have been far worse.

/RON PAUL

GaryPDX: Kerry would have been far worse.

Based on what Gary? Opinions that you pulled entirely out of your ass?

vossiewulf: chemical_angel: Occam's Chainsaw: Hobodeluxe: It does violate the article 1 inalienable rights.
No matter what George Will or the majority of motivated Californians say. You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

This.

TiltedKilt: Yes submittard, because if they had passed a constitutional amendment disenfranchising and enslaving Mexican Americans, there would be no recourse.

That.

And just for good measure: source is RealClearPropaganda. Way to push the agenda, closeted homomitter.

those

They.

Who?

Will someone who voted for Prop. 8 please supply a logical answer as to why gays shouldn't be married? Really, I'm curious. Every time I enter into the debate, I get some Fundie answer like it erodes the sanctity of marriage or they quote some "Swedish Study" that Bill-O made up.

I think that Brown's argument sucks, its a total technicality and only reinforces the belief amongst Prop 8 supporters that the "liberals in government" are trying to overrule what the majority wants and has now voted for TWICE in one of the most liberal states in the country. Brown's move is going to backfire and only harden Prop 8 supporter's beliefs.

BritneysSpeculum: I am still not sure that I see the equal protection argument given the current state of equal protection jurisprudence. Sexual orientation has not yet been deemed to be a suspect class, so the analysis would be rational relationship. I think that a court would likely consider the "preservation of the tradition of marriage" to be rationally related to the ban on same sex marriage. Please note that I am not passing on the legitimacy of that argument but instead am just commenting on what I believe the the current state of the law to be.

Person X is possessed of their full mental faculties, and is therefore legal arbiter of their person and possessions. Person X happens to be female. Person Y is forbidden to enter into a contract of marriage with Person X, solely on the basis that person Y is female.

Clear violation of equal protection laws. Again, not likely to gain any traction in courtrooms presided over by Talibangicals, but valid nonetheless.

KaponoFor3: I think that Brown's argument sucks, its a total technicality and only reinforces the belief amongst Prop 8 supporters that the "liberals in government" are trying to overrule what the majority wants and has now voted for TWICE in one of the most liberal states in the country.

I agree. His argument elevates the court above the sovereign. In essence it say that the court is above the law and its decisions are unreviewable. It really is no different than the Cheney/Nixon argument that if the president does something it is ipso facto legal.

Occam's Chainsaw: Person X is possessed of their full mental faculties, and is therefore legal arbiter of their person and possessions. Person X happens to be female. Person Y is forbidden to enter into a contract of marriage with Person X, solely on the basis that person Y is female.

Clear violation of equal protection laws. Again, not likely to gain any traction in courtrooms presided over by Talibangicals, but valid nonetheless.

But we are forced to use the law to determine what violates the law. As I said, under the current state of the law, the level of judicial scrutiny of the legislation alleged to violate the equal protection clause, is the rational relationship test. That is a very slight test for the government to pass.

BritneysSpeculum: I am still not sure that I see the equal protection argument given the current state of equal protection jurisprudence. Sexual orientation has not yet been deemed to be a suspect class, so the analysis would be rational relationship. I think that a court would likely consider the "preservation of the tradition of marriage" to be rationally related to the ban on same sex marriage. Please note that I am not passing on the legitimacy of that argument but instead am just commenting on what I believe the the current state of the law to be.

You are correct. Sexual orientation is not a suspect class (at least on the federal level, which is where this challenge would ultimately end up).

Occam's Chainsaw: Clear violation of equal protection laws.

Unfortunately this is not true, despite the fact that I personally believe it is true. Given the current state of the law, its just not the case.

brigid_fitch: Will someone who voted for Prop. 8 please supply a logical answer as to why gays shouldn't be married? Really, I'm curious. Every time I enter into the debate, I get some Fundie answer like it erodes the sanctity of marriage or they quote some "Swedish Study" that Bill-O made up.

I can give two logical reasons if you'd like.

1) Marriage is a religious institution and should not under the control of the state. The state should provide "Civil Unions" to everybody the state wants to, however, the state should not provide "Marriage" to anyone.

2) Marriage is a legal/social institution in place to protect and help family units. This means people should only be permitted to marry for the purpose of procreation. Similar to you should only be eligible for unemployment if you're actually unemployed. Now this runs into grey-areas around adoption and infertility, but it is still a valid reason.

Note: I'm not advocating either line of thought, merely stating them.

brigid_fitch: Will someone who voted for Prop. 8 please supply a logical answer as to why gays shouldn't be married? Really, I'm curious. Every time I enter into the debate, I get some Fundie answer like it erodes the sanctity of marriage or they quote some "Swedish Study" that Bill-O made up.

I work with a ton of Prop 8 supporters -- it's mainly that they do not believe that the government should recognize gay marriages as being equal to heterosexual marriages. Period.

Most of them also are worried that if the government starts supporting gay marriages, it will be taught in schools that it is OK to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that, which directly conflicts with the beliefs that they want to teach their kids.

Gay marriage is not wrong. End of discussion. You may have an opinion when you have another man's weener up your rectum, until then STFU.

/hey, it's the argument pro-choicies use in the abortion debate...

brigid_fitch: Will someone who voted for Prop. 8 please supply a logical answer as to why gays shouldn't be married? Really, I'm curious. Every time I enter into the debate, I get some Fundie answer like it erodes the sanctity of marriage or they quote some "Swedish Study" that Bill-O made up.

I didn't vote for Prop 8 (I don't live in California) but I think the sub rosa reason is that it is sort of a tacit legal acknowledgment that being gay is not a matter of choice. Once being gay is deemed in a legal sense to be biological, then it opens a panoply of rights that accrue from status.

That and the necessary admission that God created the gay.

vossiewulf: GaryPDX: Well, if we don't like laws we just ignore them. We don't change them by due process anymore. We either outright ignore them (immigration) or we get Judges to invalidate the will of the people.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

You know, I happen to agree with you that laws on the book should always be enforced, and changed only through the correct legislative methods. I want to see this law changed, but changed legally, and it should be enforced in the meantime.

On the other hand, where were you when your team spent the last 8 years 1) ignoring any business or environmental regulation they deemed inconvenient, 2)ignoring Congressional subpoenas, 3) making up whatever new executive powers they wanted, 4) spying on anyone they wanted to spy on for whatever reason? I mean seriously, you have far less than no leg to stand on here.

This.

If it's a law and it's voted on by the people of that state and adopted by their constitution, too bad. You have to go and change it the proper way. Get the people of the state to change it. Sorry, but Prop 8, as much as I hate it, was voted into law as per the laws of the state and nation.

Hobodeluxe: You can't let a majority trample the rights of a minority.

This has been said at least once before.

You know, the funny thing is, just 8 short years ago people were howling about how thing need to be decided democratically instead of in a representative fashion. Turned out to be a "careful what you wish for" kind of thing.

Dancin_In_Anson: You know, the funny thing is, just 8 short years ago people were howling about how thing need to be decided democratically instead of in a representative fashion. Turned out to be a "careful what you wish for" kind of thing.

Surviving legal challenges is part of the system.

Baby-steps.

netweavr: I can give two logical reasons if you'd like.

1) Marriage is a religious institution and should not under the control of the state. The state should provide "Civil Unions" to everybody the state wants to, however, the state should not provide "Marriage" to anyone.

A religious argument is as far from logic as you can get. Also, marriage doesn't have to be a "religious institution". Plenty of people get married without a religious ceremony and have to file the same marriage certificates as those who got married in a church/mosque/synagogue/whatever.

2) Marriage is a legal/social institution in place to protect and help family units. This means people should only be permitted to marry for the purpose of procreation. Similar to you should only be eligible for unemployment if you're actually unemployed. Now this runs into grey-areas around adoption and infertility, but it is still a valid reason.

Again, illogical since you already realized the issue w/infertility. Not to mention, what do you do when a couple gets married and just doesn't want children? As for adoption, the same people who are against gay marriage are also against gay couples adopting, so they'd never offer that argument.

I appreciate the try, but really, when you come right down to it, there's no logical reason why gays shouldn't marry. All of the answers you'll get can be boiled down to either it's against their religion or "it's just icky". Unless it's chicks.

Dancin_In_Anson: You know, the funny thing is, just 8 short years ago people were howling about how thing need to be decided democratically instead of in a representative fashion. Turned out to be a "careful what you wish for" kind of thing.

Those two situations are exactly the same too! These people arguing are such hypocrites, aren't they?

brigid_fitch: Will someone who voted for Prop. 8 please supply a logical answer as to why gays shouldn't be married? Really, I'm curious. Every time I enter into the debate, I get some Fundie answer like it erodes the sanctity of marriage or they quote some "Swedish Study" that Bill-O made up.

It's really quite simple. Homos getting married is bad enough, but if you allow that, then you have to allow other non-traditional forms of marriage too. So, by expanding the definition of marriage from what it's always been (one man + one woman) you must expand it to include any combination of men, women, animals, plants and inanimate objects.

It's illogical to ignore what is so obviously a slippery slope. If you let 2 men marry, you have to let a man marry his turtle or his Buick.

bulldg4life: Those two situations are exactly the same too! These people arguing are such hypocrites, aren't they?

Is he talking about Bush v. Gore?

Can anyone explain how marriage is all the sudden a religious institution? I'm still hazy on how they hoodwinked that one.

KaponoFor3: I work with a ton of Prop 8 supporters -- it's mainly that they do not believe that the government should recognize gay marriages as being equal to heterosexual marriages. Period.

Most of them also are worried that if the government starts supporting gay marriages, it will be taught in schools that it is OK to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that, which directly conflicts with the beliefs that they want to teach their kids.

See, this is one of those Fundie answers I always run up against. I know what they're afraid of and telling them their fears are completely unfounded only gets you preached at.

BTW, a diversity curriculum which includes recognizing that homosexuals are people, too, is already taught in many schools without anybody catching "teh ghey".

The sad thing is, as a Conservative, I have no idea why anyone would have voted for this turd.

If we like the idea of keeping the government out of our business, why pave the road for more interference?

The separation of church and state is there for a reason. To PROTECT religious institutions. Once the government throws support behind one faith, you then get into the very sticky wicket of WHICH brand of that faith will be supported. In order to keep the state from imposing then the values of one faith over another, we keep the heck away from it. Because when you start supporting one over another, then you get issues of state sponsored religion, and that's great IF you're a member of that sect--not so great if you're not. And with our system, and voting rights, that means the tables could turn fairly quickly for one sect that had the upper hand and support of the state.

It's short sighted and asinine to WANT the government to support your faith. Because the political winds shift, change, and it's far better to be allowed the freedom to practice your faith, and let others do the same, than fall into the trap of government endorsement.

This is why gay marriage is a bad issue for Conservatives, and government for that matter.

Essentially, you can argue that limitations on marriage based on sexual orientation come down to interpretations of religious texts. There is no scientific basis for it. There is no sociological basis for it. It is a religious issue.

Your church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, that is fantastic, and at no time should your church ever be forced to perform a ceremony that your parish or congregation feels is inappropriate. Be that marrying out of faith or same sex couples.

That is freedom of religion.

The problem lies when your congregation wants to limit what the Unitarians are doing down the street. And that is what Prop 8 does. It imposes values and mores from one faith OVER another.
It violates the principle of freedom of religion.

Would you want Judiac law to be imposed to force circumcision for everyone? Would you like the Catholic standard to prevent women from becoming clergy to be imposed across the board for all faiths?

Then how can you support the imposition of dictating who should marry OUTSIDE your faith? If they are in your congregation, you certainly have a say in things. If they aren't even a member of your church, or even your faith, then you are infringing on their freedom of religion, and the US Constitution takes precedence over States.

Dictate what you will in your own faith and congregations. That is your right and your freedom. And it is likewise the freedom for other faiths to disagree with you. To seek to impose your own interpretations of Scripture on other churches is WHY we put that Freedom of religion thingie in there. To prevent the Church of England, the Catholics, the other monoliths of dictating how we would worship. And Prop 8 and its ilk does little to honor that.

You may not agree that gay marriage is right, and you can certainly keep it out of your churches, but if you have any respect for the Constitution or the very freedom to practice your religion in your own way, then support of Prop 8 and others of this ilk is terrible way to show it. You piss on the very foundation of the freedoms that you enjoy.

bulldg4life: Those two situations are exactly the same too!

In some ways, yes. Mob rule is mob rule regardless of what the mob is deciding.

And let me be quit clear...I don't agree with Prop 8 in any way shape or form.

BritneysSpeculum: Is he talking about Bush v. Gore?

Yes, because the restriction of certain rights or privileges based on religious beliefs is similar to how the government picked the President 8 years ago.

And, they are the same in the way that D_I_A has found a way to denounce liberals/democrats/the left.

brigid_fitch: I appreciate the try, but really, when you come right down to it, there's no logical reason why gays shouldn't marry. All of the answers you'll get can be boiled down to either it's against their religion or "it's just icky". Unless it's chicks.

I respectfully disagree. They are logically reasons in that they follow a coherent line of reasoning. Disagreements held between people over them probably do usually fall along morality lines. That, however, does not make them illogical.

Otherwise, all arguments will quickly become non-falsifiable. For example, I could ask for a logical reason why should not be exterminated as a species and claim all responses are "illogical" because they are based in some ethical system.

BritneysSpeculum: That and the necessary admission that God created the gay.

Which if the fundies' Bibles had the book of Wisdom in it, they'd already have to face. To wit "For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have made. And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?".