Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[IBCoupe]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1145.story

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Breaking news; your thoughts?

[audtatious]

Was going to happen regardless

[ADDirishboy]

Was going to happen regardless

Agreed.

Also, I have a feeling this thread won't last long.

[wingFeather]

Wonder if they'll legalize inter-species marriage soon. Why irrationally limit marriage to humans?

[stebo0728]

Just a question ... what right do I as a heterosexual male have that a homosexual male does not have? I cannot marry a man either right now.

[ADDirishboy]

Wonder if they'll legalize inter-species marriage soon. Why irrationally limit marriage to humans?

Ah, the worst argument in the book returns.

[Bubba1]

I think the judges decision was appropriate.There is a difference between civil union and a religious marriage. One is simply a legal contract defining how the state sees two individual adults. The other includes formalizing a relationship between the couple and God. What I think many fail to grasp is the difference. A church is not required to recognize or accept a gay religious marriage, that's their choice. But a State cannot ultimately discriminate that way. It must offer an equal contract for all adults regardless. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional smply because it discriminates.

The pedophilia and beastiality arguments are silly and irrelevant. Those are clearly illegal acts, and there are many heterosexual pedophiles and animal abusers. It's also not illegal to be gay.

It'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will handle it.

[audtatious]

The majority of those who voted against "gay marriage" would have been OK with a "civil union", but those pushing for "equality" refused to have it.

Oh well, how about we kick out polygamy laws next. Then we can have individuals married to both men and women at the same time. Should be interesting watching Divorce Court when Suzie wants to divorce Cindy when they are both married to Steve and don't want to divorce him.

[srellim234]

As a California voter, I'm one of those who voted to ban recognition of gay marriages. As I explained to our gay niece and nephew (one on my side of the family, one on my wife's) I'm against it for a different reason than that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am against the state recognizing any marriage. It should be left to the churches to perform marriages separately from a state civil union between two consenting adults. Let people get a civil union before a justice of the peace, judge, etc. and then go get married in a church if they so desire. Currently a minister performing the ceremony can sign off on a state issued marriage certificate. I believe that is wrong.

I would like to see state recognition of marriage stopped entirely and would vote that way if given the opportunity. Once one's commitment to another consenting adult is separated into civil unions (state) and marriage (church) it will probably go away as such a divisive issue.

[AZhitman]

So, California... How's it feel to have the will of the people and the majority vote overturned by one person legislating from the bench?

Now, before IBC poops all up his back, I understand that we can't have mob rule, and sometimes, the majority is wrong.

Civil rights was a good example (although I'm still not convinced the Civil Rights bill wouldn't have passed on popular vote, but that's ancient history and not germane to the issue at hand).

My issue with this is, what does this do for voter apathy? Why vote, if someone already "knows what's best for us"? MOST of the time, that person is NOT someone I want making the rules.

With that said, my tack on gay marriage is kinda like IBC's position on the mosque (I'm calling it a mosque, it's shorter). I'm not concerned about what gay people do. I say leave them be. Any issues I have with it would be strictly legalistic in nature, involving complex tax, benefit, head-of-household, estate, and other issues. Get those hammered out and IDGAF.

BTW, I loved Steve's post above. Brilliant, and I'd never thought of it that way.

[ADDirishboy]

As a California voter, I'm one of those who voted to ban recognition of gay marriages. As I explained to our gay niece and nephew (one on my side of the family, one on my wife's) I'm against it for a different reason than that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am against the state recognizing any marriage. It should be left to the churches to perform marriages separately from a state civil union between two consenting adults. Let people get a civil union before a justice of the peace, judge, etc. and then go get married in a church if they so desire. Currently a minister performing the ceremony can sign off on a state issued marriage certificate. I believe that is wrong.

I would like to see state recognition of marriage stopped entirely and would vote that way if given the opportunity. Once one's commitment to another consenting adult is separated into civil unions (state) and marriage (church) it will probably go away as such a divisive issue.

I actually REALLY like that. Never thought of it that way.

[IBCoupe]

Just a question ... what right do I as a heterosexual male have that a homosexual male does not have? I cannot marry a man either right now.

Heard this so many times. It works both ways, Stebo:

Women can legally marry men, so why should the State discriminate on the basis of gender? If memory serves, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made that a protected class. That's reverse-discrimination! Men are equal to women!

Seems odd that you'd opt to argue for the inclusion of more governmental restrictions on individual rights rather than the removal of inequally-applied restrictions.

And to Srellim,
If we're going to have government involvement at all, it can't be discriminatory. So while it would make sense to vote in favor of the removal of government-sponsored unions altogether, voting in favor of piecemeal opposition that happens to discriminate is a bit suspicious.

[Bubba1]

The majority of those who voted against "gay marriage" would have been OK with a "civil union", but those pushing for "equality" refused to have it.

Oh well, how about we kick out polygamy laws next. Then we can have individuals married to both men and women at the same time. Should be interesting watching Divorce Court when Suzie wants to divorce Cindy when they are both married to Steve and don't want to divorce him.

If you want to see that kinda stuff now, just watch Jerry Springer.

[Cold_Zero]

Bubba, I would add 'not yet' to the first part of your post.

What will be interesting to see is people who support plural marriage will us the same tactics and laws that have been used to normalize and legalize same sex unions. Personally, if you are going to recognize the one, why does the number of spouses really matter?

[Bubba1]

What will be interesting to see is people who support plural marriage will us the same tactics and laws that have been used to normalize and legalize same sex unions. Personally, if you are going to recognize the one, why does the number of spouses really matter?

That is an Interesting question, but there's a hurdle that prevents plural marriage fans from doing that. Polygamy is currently illegal in this country and being gay is not.

[audtatious]

What will be interesting to see is people who support plural marriage will us the same tactics and laws that have been used to normalize and legalize same sex unions. Personally, if you are going to recognize the one, why does the number of spouses really matter?

That is an Interesting question, but there's a hurdle that prevents plural marriage fans from doing that. Polygamy is currently illegal in this country and being gay is not.

There used to be sodomy laws on the books (may be still in some states) which pretty much made anything gays do illegal so it's pretty much the same thing....Now that the barriers are being busted down that humans can marry the same gender, what about bisexuals? Why should those people not be able to marry who they want to? What if they were in love with a man AND another woman? Why should they be punished by their "bisex gene"?

[Bubba1]

There used to be sodomy laws on the books (may be still in some states) which pretty much made anything gays do illegal so it's pretty much the same thing....Now that the barriers are being busted down that humans can marry the same gender, what about bisexuals? Why should those people not be able to marry who they want to? What if they were in love with a man AND another woman? Why should they be punished by their "bisex gene"?

Yep, that's part of what makes the question interesting. Unfortunately for the bisexual, if they want to get legally "hitched", just like a heterosexual polygamist, he/she must chose one or the other. In California, I guess the State wants to make that choice for you.

I believe the Supreme Court squashed all state sodomy laws back in 2003(?). Not surprising, as there are more heterosexuals guilty of engaging in the same "illegal" behavior than homosexuals.

[Cold_Zero]

Agreed Matt, and playing devils advocate, I would say that plural marriages offer greater security (financial, social and family) than the traditional two person marriage. And it should be pointed out that the laws on the books were to discriminate against and get ride of the social pirriah of the time, the Mormons. It was this country that hunted them down, forced them west (at the time Mexico) and killed their religious leaders.

[stebo0728]

I see this thread heading toward a lock ...

[Bubba1]

I see this thread heading toward a lock ...

It's been civil thus far, so it might last longer than a Nala advice thread...

[Cold_Zero]

Not necessarily. We have had this discussion before after Prop 8 was passed and it went on for several pages before it got locked.

[wingFeather]

Ah, the worst argument in the book returns.

Why do you say this? There should be no limits on age, quantity or species. Anything less is prejudice and irrational - just like the old laws against sodomy.

[stebo0728]

Ah, the worst argument in the book returns.

Why do you say this? There should be no limits on age, quantity or species. Anything less is prejudice and irrational - just like the old laws against sodomy.

Actually I sense you are being facetious, but the french libertine movement so long ago, the fundamental roots for libertarianism, thought exactly along those same lines. Anything goes. I dont mean to claim that anyone here wielding the libertarian banner thinks that way, but its the classical roots of the movement.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Well I am a little late in this thread...But I wanted to say what Bubba said...With my friend being Catholic and my Wife being a pretty strict Christian this topic has come up a number of time. "Marriage" is a religious thing and clearly states that it is between a man and a woman. However, in this country you get financial benifits, and other things, for being married. That is discriminating against gays. Like Bubba said a civil union is different and is a fair way to do things because then gays aren't being discriminated against. I think they need to stop using the term "marriage" and call it "gay union" or something. Let the church deal with marriage and the state deal with unions. hmmm I never did ask my wife if she would have tried to marry a woman. She is bisexual but ended up with me. I should get her imput on that.

[srellim234]

IB- That's my point. We should not have any government involvement in marriage at all. If piecemeal removal eventually leads to the discussions and final removal for all, that's the direction to go. This issue may now be getting to a point where rational heads can start to sort it out and make headway but up until now it's been driven by emotions. The calm discussion and compromise necessary to get this right has been missing.

Unfortunately some discrimination is going to happen in virtually every law that involves gender, race, economic status, etc. It's virtually unavoidable, from this instance to the male Caucasian facing reverse discrimination due to affirmative action to the higher economic classes paying a higher percentage of income tax. Until this country becomes color, gender, sexual preference, (fill-in-the-blank) blind we're not going to achieve the goal of "all men are created equal."

[vikesfankevin1986]

IB- That's my point. We should not have any government involvement in marriage at all. If piecemeal removal eventually leads to the discussions and final removal for all, that's the direction to go. This issue may now be getting to a point where rational heads can start to sort it out and make headway but up until now it's been driven by emotions. The calm discussion and compromise necessary to get this right has been missing.

Unfortunately some discrimination is going to happen in virtually every law that involves gender, race, economic status, etc. It's virtually unavoidable, from this instance to the male Caucasian facing reverse discrimination due to affirmative action to the higher economic classes paying a higher percentage of income tax. Until this country becomes color, gender, sexual preference, (fill-in-the-blank) blind we're not going to achieve the goal of "all men are created equal."

Is "all me are created equal" even possible? Have there been any nations/empires/group of people, where everyone is equal? My wife still complains about how she is not equal to a man. I get annoyed with that real fast...I tell her that in America today women have more rights than they have ever had anywhere, at any point in history. If it's so bad, move to the Middle East. Also almost every single culture in history had slaves or something close to it. I know this is hard to believe but slavery did not start with blacks in America. But once again we managed to eliminate slavery. Obviously America is well ahead of anyone else in history but I don't think we will ever reach the ultimate goal. Everyone will dislike someone for some reason.

[srellim234]

You're right in that it is not totally achievable but it is still an honorable goal to strive for.

[IBCoupe]

If it's an honorable goal to strive for, is there room for justification of unequal removal of government privileges? I can appreciate the position that government shouldn't be in the position of honoring marriages, but the glaring problem is that the government is involved in those marriages. If we accept that the government is currently involved, and the option of removing that involvement across the board is not on the table, how is it possibly justifiable to say that government discrimination is acceptable?

[srellim234]

In a pure sense it is not justifiable but in a practical sense sometimes that's the way this country works. Rights for blacks came incrementally. Womens rights through property ownership and suffrage was incremental. I tend to think that rights for gays are in the incremental process and they will rightfully achieve total equality but on this issue I would very much prefer to see us remove government marriage from the heterosexual realm. To that end I'm not interested in expanding it.

Part of my opposition, too, is my lack of understanding on how this will affect the separation of church and state. If ministers are currently signing off on a state (civil) document, will they be forced by the state to not discriminate and perform these marriages? Even if it violates their religious beliefs? I understand that a church could opt to no longer perform any weddings that would be recognized by the state but that's the end I would like to see achieved by eliminating all state marriage. And that's totally non-discriminatory.

[ADDirishboy]

Why do you say this? There should be no limits on age, quantity or species. Anything less is prejudice and irrational - just like the old laws against sodomy.

So now you're actually saying that gays and dogs are equal? No. One's a human being, who has rational thoughts and is able to consent to another person in a relationship. The other, is a dog, and can't do any of that. I really hate it when people like you bring up that stupid argument. Dog's are not on the same level as people. You're argument is invalid.

Age? Really? Again, it's kinda like the dog argument. Are you actually going to tell me that a 10 year old is able to make a decision like that? They barely know their multiplication tables, dude. Children don't have the mental capacity to make decisions like that. Yet again, your argument is invalid.

As for quantity, I don't really have an argument for that. I haven't ever really investigated into the legalities of having multiple spouses, so I won't even delve into that realm.