Prop 8

[Guard Dog]

Exactly! This is at best a state issue to be decided by voters in each state or the legislature of each state. Right or wrong the voters of California said no to gay marriage. The only recourse gays have is to begin a ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8, try to get the folks in Sacramento to do it, or move to Hawaii, Vermont, Iowa or one of the other states that have legalized same sex marriage.

 

You do not want unelected and unaccountable federal judges practicing heavy handed judicial activisim and trampling all over the law as they do it. This time you might agree with the outcome, I promise you there will come a a time when you are horrified by it.

 

I hope Walkers ruling is overturned and he is rebuked for over reaching.

Can't be any more horrifying than the excesses of the previous presidential administration.

Or the current one, but there again we are talking apples and oranges.

[Calax]

Look GD you may rail all you want against the ruling as being judicial activism and over-reaching. But the point still stands that there is the judicial precedent set by other court cases that allows for a judge to rule on this item. Hell isn't the judiciary supposed to be a guard against the masses decisions to infringe and/or discriminate against others?

 

As to the whole "not recognized as a descriminated party" doesn't that also work for the black man circa 1890?

[Gromnir]

no matter how persuasive the argument, a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is. Brown arguably increased racial intolerance. The Civil Rights legislation, passed by democratically elected Congress, finally brought 'bout some positives for "the black man" you describe. regardless of their intentions, the Court did minorities no favors. Brown created a decade o' strife. conversely, amateur historians o' american jurisprudence might wanna look to the events surrounding Roberts v. Boston (1850) for inspiration and enlightenment. don't simply look to wiki, or you will fail. try and figure out what happened in Massachusetts after the State Court's decision.

 

no judge will decrease bigotry 'gainst homosexuals. is gonna have to be The People who finally grow up and get enlightened.

 

'course, as we noted already, the current case does not present the Court with quite the nightmare scenario that were Brown. no complex implementation and enforcement scheme need be developed to makes same-sex marriage a reality. the fallout from this case won't be anywhere near what we saw in Brown.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

[Gromnir]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

 

fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. the only way the right exists in a multi-branch, representative democratic government such as ours is if that right is granted by the people. and even if a judge tries to conjure up a right w/o any legal support, the right is meaningless 'less the people is willing to observe. keep in mind that is not simply judges who gets caught up in misguided paternalism. prohibition is an example in which the democratic elected officials attempted to force through a law for the good o' the people, w/o actual having the support of the people. such a law is doomed to fail.

 

you wanna make people better? use education and goodwill. use laws to force people to become better is doomed... it doesn't work.

 

regardless, same-sex marriage ain't anywhere near same scale as is school desegregation. most folks in Sacramento do not support prop 8, so while a slim majority o' The People got prop8 passed, the elected officials is largely opposed to the law. california ain't gonna have to use the national guard to enforce gay marriage if the appellate and supreme court rules in favor o' the plaintiffs; this just ain't that big a deal... and homosexuals has been living as married couples for decades, regardless o' whether or not they is able to take advantage o' tax breaks, inter-spousal transfers, and capital gains sharing. those folks who was able to take advantage o' the California same-sex marriage court ruling previous to prop 8 passage is facing no more or less bigotry than is their peers who is living as life partners. resistance to same-sex marriage has been steadily decreasing for decades. sadly, am not so sure that will be the case next year when this becomes seen as a full blown State Rights v. Fed battle. many folks who not give a damn 'bout homosexual marriage will be fighting against Fed interloping. is ironic that we don't foresee big trouble in CA, but there will be trouble a brewing elsewhere in the nation... and the folks who will suffer unnecessary backlash will be the homosexual community.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

 

fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws.

 

Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Krezack

[Gromnir]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

 

fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws.

 

Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect.

 

 

eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Gromnir is dead right on one thing allowing this to become a states rights issue was the worst thing that could happen to the plaintiffs. Now they will make enemies where they might have found allies.

[Humodour]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

 

fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws.

 

Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect.

 

 

eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

To reiterate, because you missed the point again: this decision is not targeted at changing the attitudes of the current generation of bigots. If it is even aimed at changing attitudes at all as you imply (rather than simply eliminating institutional discrimination and protecting a minority from the tyranny of the masses), which I doubt, then it is aimed at preventing Americans yet to be born from becoming bigots in the first place by providing a world where the notion of homosexuals and heterosexuals having different rights under law is foreign; where the rule of law fully endorses equal rights for same-sex couples.

 

Do I think legal judgement is necessary for homosexuals to enjoy equal rights under law? No - each generation is progressively less bigoted. But if homosexuals have to wait for the current generations of youth to replace the conservative elderly that die off before they receive equal treatment under law (or rather, distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is simply abolished), that's another decade or two away. It's simply unreasonable and unfair.

[Gromnir]

a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is.

 

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right.

 

fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws.

 

Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect.

 

 

eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

To reiterate, because you missed the point again: this decision is not targeted at changing the attitudes of the current generation of bigots. If it is even aimed at changing attitudes at all as you imply (rather than simply eliminating institutional discrimination and protecting a minority from the tyranny of the masses), which I doubt, then it is aimed at preventing Americans yet to be born from becoming bigots in the first place by providing a world where the notion of homosexuals and heterosexuals having different rights under law is foreign; where the rule of law fully endorses equal rights for same-sex couples.

 

Do I think legal judgement is necessary for homosexuals to enjoy equal rights under law? No - each generation is progressively less bigoted. But if homosexuals have to wait for the current generations of youth to replace the conservative elderly that die off before they receive equal treatment under law (or rather, distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is simply abolished), that's another decade or two away. It's simply unreasonable and unfair.

 

talk 'bout going in circles. once again, we never suggested or implied that plaintiff success would result in some kinda no-win for homosexuals whereby they would fail to actual get marriage rights. in fact we has said the opposite numerous times, pointing out how different the prop 8 case is when compared to Brown. as for your hypothesized notion o' a less bigoted world 'cause homosexuals is given bare legal rights of marriage, you is complete naive and deluded. show proof. we has already pointed to the history o' litigation regarding race and observed that a win in Court does not change the attitudes o' the people. so, show us how the granting o' a largely symbolic right to homosexuals, particularly in light of the fact that yous is so obvious unclear on the details o' the recent decision and do not seem to realize that same-sex marriage still ain't been given the weight o' a "fundamental right" and homosexuals will not be getting no "suspect class" status, will result in some kinda paradigm shift o' attitudes related to homosexuals. utter nonsense.

 

oh, and each generation is not progressive less bigoted. w/o court interference that is indeed the case, but Brown showed us that the Court can actually increase racial intolerance with its misguided attempts to make Americans better than they is. after Brown, kkk membership rose sharply and so did violent crimes 'gainst blacks.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

That sounds more like a short term backlash than an actual increase in racial intolerance. That is to be expected with any change, and if anything it drives the people who are on the fence about the issue into the tolerant camp.

[Gromnir]

That sounds more like a short term backlash than an actual increase in racial intolerance. That is to be expected with any change, and if anything it drives the people who are on the fence about the issue into the tolerant camp.

 

 

short term backlash that lasts nearly a decade... right up until Congress begins to implement changes? that is a considerable long and violent bit o' backlash, not that we forsee anything like that in the present context, 'cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals.

 

btw, forced judicial change is more likely to drive people who are on the fence into the intolerant camp. people don't like decisions forced upon them.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals.

 

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it.

[Gromnir]

cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals.

 

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it.

 

 

and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's.

 

very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

...gay marriage, thankfully, is different than segregation. the Courts didn't have effective means to enforce desegregation, and they were woeful unsuited to implementing effective plans for desegregation. gay marriage requires no such complex enforcement and implementation mechanisms. also, while some folks in CA and elsewhere is very strong opposed to gay marriage, the ca prop 8 vote were a close thing. the majority spoke when they voted for prop 8, but it weren't a particular overwhelming majority. conversely, there ain't no way in hell you is gonna see a unanimous Court rule in favor o' gay marriage. one Justice literal got off his deathbed to make sure that Brown were unanimous...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm hardly qualified to argue the constitutional merits of "equal protection" and "due process", per Walker's ruling. I just wanted to let others in this thread know that in 2000, Californians did indeed vote to allow gay marriages in the state, a law that was upheld on appeal. California has 18,000 homosexual couples who were married while the law was in effect, marriages that are still legally recognized.

 

The only reason, in my view, that some who favored gay marriage in 2000 voted against it in 2008 was the disingenuous and totally false smear campaign which promised that if Prop 8 didn't pass, teachers would be required to teach a homosexual lifestyle to children, starting in kindergarten. Even so as you have noted, it was a fairly close vote.

 

Obviously my personal feeling is that since so many tax, estate, military, entitlement, health issues, etc., are enjoyed by married couples yet are denied to homosexual couples because they cannot be legally married, that homosexuals are indeed being discriminated against. Since I believe that homosexuals are born that way, that means that sexual orientation should have the same protections and opportunities as heterosexual couples. This is my personal opinion, however, and whether the laws will ever be changed to support that opinion remains to be seen.

 

Edit: I should have read to the end of the thread before responding. I see the previous approval of gay marriage in California has indeed been mentioned already.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ~Di

[Orogun01]

and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's.

 

very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

The impact on day to day basis is mostly unnoticed even with family members, its just the nature of routine. No, the rights that are granted to married couples are those that come with uncommon situation. Such as medical decisions.

[Calax]

cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals.

 

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it.

 

 

and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's.

 

very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

What about health insurance, filing taxes jointly, and the instant position of legal guardianship of the other partner that are given by a legal marriage? For health insurance you have to pay extra than a standard couple simply to have the exact same benefits (At least in the Los Rios Community College District). And for Legal Guardianship this can be a major stickler because if one partner keels over and the other wants to help them and make decisions they know the other person wants, but the homophobic parents want this guy out of his lovers life, he can't do crap all because he has no legal leg to stand on.

 

There are a few people I know who got married before prop 8 went through, and they're doing ok. Several couples who didn't, really want to be married for emotional reasons.

 

Are you saying that this issue would be more pressing and should be moved on faster if the housing market hadn't tanked?

 

Also, What adoption agency will give permission to an unwed couple for adoption of a child? Or if they get it through as one particular member adopting, what happens legally if parent and child (legally) are in an accident? Do grandma and grandpa arrive and call the shots?

 

Most people don't see issues because they're too used to their current situation and wouldn't notice it till it's gone.

[Hurlshort]

Heck, just the act of introducing your partner is awkward when you are gay. My former principal has been with his partner for 30+ years, but he can't just introduce him as his husband. I know GD and maybe some other folks have had bad experiences with marriage, but when they work, it can be wonderful. Gay couples aren't recognized by society in the same light as a man and a woman. I see that as extremely wrong. Obviously the government stepping in isn't going to magically change our society, but it is an important part of the process.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I just wanted to let others in this thread know that in 2000, Californians did indeed vote to allow gay marriages in the state, a law that was upheld on appeal.

Never happened.

[Calax]

I just wanted to let others in this thread know that in 2000, Californians did indeed vote to allow gay marriages in the state, a law that was upheld on appeal.

Never happened.

Both true and not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr...n_22_%282000%29

 

in 2000 Prop 22 went through enacting a straight only marriages law, that was quickly struck down by the court as unconstitutional. This is what triggered the initial wave of marriages IIRC and ultimately culminated in the Prop8 fiasco.

 

Interestingly Prop8 and 22 are both basically the same thing, AND (for those interested) appear to nullify any marriage performed in say, Boston, between same sex couples within the state of CA. So a gay couple ties the knot Iowa and gets a job opportunity in CA? Well, they're screwed because they have to do everything as single men/women again.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Both true and not? Prop 22 was exactly the opposite of claimed, it both outlawed homo marriage and was struck down by the court.

[~Di]

I just wanted to let others in this thread know that in 2000, Californians did indeed vote to allow gay marriages in the state, a law that was upheld on appeal.

Never happened.

 

You're right, I remembered wrong and skimmed a source quickly, clearly misreading it. It was the California legislature, not the voting public, that several times passed gay marriage bills, with the governor citing prop 22 as the reason for his veto. When the California supreme court overturned Prop 22 as unconstitutional, the window opened for gay marriages.

 

Here's a timeline of events, summarized.

 

http://www.kcra.com/politics/17872316/detail.html

 

Be gentle with me. I'm old. I knew I'd voted for gay marriage in 2000, and figured all the smart people in the state did too!

[Guard Dog]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/0...allenges_p.html

 

Here is a great article on this subject. It hits a lot of the points Gromnir and I have been trying to drive home to you guys. The problem with most of you is that you see a great injustice that Prop 8 does to a small group of people. The Walker decsision rectifies that and you are so happy that you are blinded to the even greater injustice the decision does to the entire state of California, the US Constitution and the seperation of state and federal power.

 

The federalcourt is unelected and unaccountable to the people. They are without a doubt the most dangerous institution in the US because of that. At least in state courts justices must face the voters every four years. Federal appointments are for life. When a federal judge practices heavy handed activisim it is a terrible thing. Even if you are happy with the outcome you should not be happy with how it was done if you do love justice and your country. Remember, next time the decision may horrify you. What the people of California did in passing Prop 8 was stupid and wrong. But, what Walker did was destructive and, dare I say it, evil. That was not his intetion, but the precedent he set by overuling a state law decided by the people could be used for something terrible later down the road.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

I wonder what the Ninth Circus is going to think about the guy completely ignoring higher court precedents.

[Calax]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/0...allenges_p.html

 

Here is a great article on this subject. It hits a lot of the points Gromnir and I have been trying to drive home to you guys. The problem with most of you is that you see a great injustice that Prop 8 does to a small group of people. The Walker decsision rectifies that and you are so happy that you are blinded to the even greater injustice the decision does to the entire state of California, the US Constitution and the seperation of state and federal power.

 

The federalcourt is unelected and unaccountable to the people. They are without a doubt the most dangerous institution in the US because of that. At least in state courts justices must face the voters every four years. Federal appointments are for life. When a federal judge practices heavy handed activisim it is a terrible thing. Even if you are happy with the outcome you should not be happy with how it was done if you do love justice and your country. Remember, next time the decision may horrify you. What the people of California did in passing Prop 8 was stupid and wrong. But, what Walker did was destructive and, dare I say it, evil. That was not his intetion, but the precedent he set by overuling a state law decided by the people could be used for something terrible later down the road.

I fail to see why you keep harping on this. The supreme court exists to trample on those laws that they determine to be unconstitutional on a federal and/or state level. The only difference between this and Brown in terms of what is being killed is that Brown was a State Law and the Prop 8 was a state Constitutional amendment that got through the ludicrously easy to amend proposition system.

 

Hell, the Supreme court already has shown that it's a bastard who doesn't care about people in Bush V Gore where Bush (who had 47% of the popular vote to Gores 48) was basically put in office by SCOTUS because of the Florida fiasco in 2000 where SCOTUS went against Gore.