Prop 8 passes

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MhwOQPXcCAA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MhwOQPXcCAA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

absolutely right...i didn't mean my post to suggest i was speaking for anyone other than myself

 

I haven't seen proof, there's just an article about him in the San Francisco Chronicle from before the trial where they mention it as if it is common knowledge but not terribly relevant.

I think given that it's pretty likely that he is gay, the question is, does it matter? (And the answer is no, not really.)

 

Millions also voted against Prop-8 too.

 

How could it possibly not matter? If he is gay, unless he's some psycho who's in the habit of ****s guys in the ass but thinks the act of homosexuality itself is immoral he's inclined to be prejudiced on one side of the debate.

This isn't just for gay marriage but any judge who is personally invested in a case is obligated to recuse himself whether he himself believes he's biased or not.

Of course you think a straight judge should have come to the same conclusion. Are you in the habit of holding beliefs you think are wrong? For any opinion you hold obviously you'd think anyone... gay, straight, bestiality-focused whatever should logically agree with you... or you'd not hold that opinion in the first place.

I think you're playing a little semantic game here. If you start with the definition that Prop 8 is a denial of equal rights then you cant go anywhere else but to conclude that upholding Prop 8 is a denial of equal rights (see figure 1). Obviously the issue is that a clear majority of voters dont see expanding the definition of marriage per the demands of a special interest group as a denial of rights but a sort of extraterritorial and non-congruent extension of what is a basic right (marriage). And therefore it's a "new" (and unestablished) right.

Their argument would go something like this: the Law should not discriminate whether someone is gay or straight. Everyone has the same right: to marry (which is to enter into a union with one member of the opposite sex in a legal or religious arrangement). It doesn't matter if you happen to be gay or straight you both have that same right. Any other arrangements (marrying a member of the same sex, marrying 2 people, marrying a goat) are not marriage but something else which are therefore open to a different set of rights and limitation than marriage. Therefore it's not discrimination since you're comparing about 2 different rights administered differently.

For what it's worth. I think gays should have the right to marry and really anyone should have the right to marry anyone it doesn't hurt anything. Polygamy should be legal. Underaged kids should be able to marry. You should be able to marry your cat. There probably should be provisions for legal protections for siblings who live together in a longterm (platonic) relationship etc. I do believe that in our society people should be able to enter into whatever arrangement they like as long as there's no harm. As long as they're legitimate arrangements and not some sort of financial dodge what the **** do we care if 2 brothers enter into some "non-sexual life-partnership" or if a dude marries his goat or 2 gay dudes want to get married and take fudge packing to the next level?

However the idea that one group gets special protections based purely on social and political pull instead of principle is annoying. I can't tell the difference between the right of homosexuals and polygamists other than the fact that there's a lot more gays with a lot more money and influence than polygamists. If being able to marry whomever you like is indeed a right... it only has any sort of moral standing if it's applied universally

... so we can only hope and wait in the name of morality for the legal challenges from the USPA and USGFA for polygamist marriage and goat marriage once gay marriage is legalized.

 

That's quite a standard. Should minority judges not be able to rule on cases involving minority rights? Women should be disallowed from ruling on women's issues? Should married judges not be allowed to rule on issues of marriage or divorce?

 

I would argue that anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral is prejudiced on the other side of the debate.

In this case the issue is not if homosexuality is immoral, but if it is permissible to deny a minority a right given to 90 percent of the population, because 40-60 percent of the population is disquieted and made uncomfortable by the thought of the minority practicing this right.

Some of the old chestnut fallacies you hear about gays by those who oppose their lifestyle include that they are wildly promiscuous, or pedophiles. Yet, we oppose their efforts to commit to another adult in a permanent loving relationship. The reason, by permitting them to marry, grow old together, raise kids, heck sometimes even divorce makes it uncomfortably clear they are just like us.

Gays and Lesbians aren't a threat to the institution of marriage, the 60 percent divorce rate is.

 

Others already gave other analogies, but specifically for this case wouldn't a catholic or mormon have to recuse himself under the same logic?

If his findings were wrong, then they will probably be overturned. That's the best you can do in these situations, otherwise judges would be recusing themselves from cases left and right. That should be saved for when they have a more direct stake in the proceedings.

First, goat-marriage is completely different, it shouldn't be used as an analogy until goats can be consensual partners.

Otherwise your point is valid. However, just because we don't allow polygamy (yet) doesn't mean we should disallow gay marriage. That's not logical. You can argue we should allow both, but if the question before you is about gay marriage then it should be answered on its own merits. When the question of polygamy comes up it, too, can be debated on its own merits.

 

You should be banned for comparing humans marrying each other to what bestiality. Being opposed to gay marriage is one thing, but you lose any ability to claim you are anything other than a monster and a bigot when you compare two humans in love to what amounts to nothing more than raping an animal.

 

Don't forget he also compared consenting adults marrying to pedophilia.

I don't think he should be banned but his comparison is completely off base.

 

So should women judges recuse themselves on cases involving abortions? Or black judges shouldn't accept cases on civil rights issues?

 

Okay I'm a big "state's rights" proponent and not here to attack gay marriage because I feel all individuals should have the right to marry.

Anyway, my argument focuses on the constitutional aspect of this case specifically if the the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over a proposal voted by the people of a state.

1) If marriage is a privileged status granted by the state then it has the full right and capacity to define the terms of that status. I think that is what prop 8 does when it defines the condition in which two people can enter a contract to be lawfully recognized by the state. This is within the realm of powers granted to the States under the Constitution.

2) Many on the left constantly argue for empowering the electorate but when people vote a certain way on a proposition then all of sudden democracy has to take a backseat to the desired outcome of the minority. Again, I'm all for democratization of the decision making process in this country. I think it works better than corrupt dealings in Washington.

3) I fully understand the argument against providing people the means to infringe the civil rights of other citizens. I'm also in agreement against giving people having the power to pass laws to freely discriminate and return to segregation and slavery. However, if we are going to remove the power from the people to make a democratic decision because we fear they are going to make a poor and misguided choice then I think we should do away with democracy altogether. By continuing to claim ourselves as a "free democracy" we are saying that we are a democracy so long as we get to choose among two brands of corrupt politicians because we fear that we lack the restrain necessary to self-regulate through a ballot box and an electorate. Beyond that our democracy is just an illusion in the desire to have others make the political correct decisions.

Finally, I think If either side of the debate is going to be successful, they should work to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I think that would be the best solution where the legality of the issue and the consensus of the states in ratification shall determine the proper merits of the issue. Slavery and Civil Rights were determined through the same avenue of constitutional amendment. I would like to see how people on both sides would react when the amendment would pass or fail through congressional voting and then ratification by the states. Would people still respect the structure of our Constitution and government if the decision is different from their views? Personally, I would support the outcome of the constitutional amendment because it would demonstrate the spirit of our democracy more so than any judge could show from the bench.

 

This isn't true. Lots of civil rights have been addressed without constitutional amendment. The Civil Rights Act, for example. Or preventing states from restricting interracial marriage. Your version of the history of the US and how things get addressed doesn't really fit reality.

Do you think we should have let people vote on interracial marriage? There are very specific Constitutional issues with gay marriage - and it will be determined by the Supreme Court (the body defined in the Constitution to deal with said issues) whether the state has a reason or right to restrict it in various ways.

 

prop 8 pwn3d

 

Awesome. I was living in Cali and campaigning against it. Was angry when it passed given how openly discriminatory the bill was.

Glad it was struck down.