• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

Wow this is obviously big news. This thread hasn't even been here a day and there are 40 pages!

I guess I can't really debate any point that hasn't already been said, so I'll just say this.

I think what the court did was right, in light of the constitutional amendment, but I personally believe the amendment itself was wrong and an affront to civil liberty. As an outside observer of U.S. politics, I learned something very valuable on the day that Prop 8 passed: that State constitutions are meaningless. If only 51% of a popular vote is required to modify it, then it's not worth the paper it is written on. Letting a slim-majority mob alter such an important document is a joke, especially when it comes to the private lives and families of so many people.

More importantly, this issue isn't just going to go away. In a nation like the U.S. that upholds pluralism and popular protest, the issue will be overturned eventually, especially in a place like CA. It's just a matter of time, as history has shown. The Prop 8 amendment didn't pass by very much in the first place, and GM proponents will not stop until more people realize what a shame it is.

The gay rights movement in general has always faced an uphill battle. Harvey Milk knew this when he had to run for office four times before getting elected to his district in San Fran, and he knew it when he had to face the "Save Our Children" campaign lead by Anita Bryant. Gays suffered civil defeat many times before their awareness campaigns finally got people to wake up.

People will try to separate the issue by saying gay marriage is not about gay rights, but about the creation of a new right. Whether or not it is is not the issue to gay people. They want to get married, and so they eventually shall. No other moral imperative is goign to stop them.
 
Well I'm not going to read the previous 40 pages as I'd expect that the majority is just a lot of whining and spinning by all the gay advocates on this board. So after endless threads about this issue in the last few years, the definition of marriage here in California IS settled for now. And WE WON period. The other obvious reality is you advocates have spent all your influence manipulating backdoor judicial and political strings around the people, and its OVER for now. They can't do anything for yuh anymore. Get used to it. It's in our constitution now and the courts AGREED...that is it. So all your endless blabbering of how it was going to happen "whether you like it or not" (thanks yet again Gavin!) has come up short just as I have been predicting.
 
Orius said:
As an outside observer of U.S. politics, I learned something very valuable on the day that Prop 8 passed: that State constitutions are meaningless. If only 51% of a popular vote is required to modify it, then it's not worth the paper it is written on. Letting a slim-majority mob alter such an important document is a joke, especially when it comes to the private lives and families of so many people.
Click to expand...
In the end a majority can always up-end a constitution if it really wants to, only armed force and repression could stop it, the appropriate solution is as you hint to try and make it so a higher majority is required rather than say putting the power in any office or tribunal to stop such such act.

This issue is of course complicated by the fact it was aimed at over turning of a piece of judicial activism rather than an entrenched constitutional right.
More importantly, this issue isn't just going to go away. In a nation like the U.S. that upholds pluralism and popular protest, the issue will be overturned eventually, especially in a place like CA. It's just a matter of time, as history has shown. The Prop 8 amendment didn't pass by very much in the first place, and GM proponents will not stop until more people realize what a shame it is.
Click to expand...
You are correct, I doubt the media or the establishment will allow the issue to lie, I saw a terribly biased news article on BBC world about it today.

I'm a moderate supporter of gay civil unions at least but damn am I sick of a lot of the pro-GM group.

People will try to separate the issue by saying gay marriage is not about gay rights, but about the creation of a new right. Whether or not it is is not the issue to gay people. They want to get married, and so they eventually shall. No other moral imperative is goign to stop them.
Click to expand...
No doubt the Gracchi felt the same way.
 
Last edited:
SpotsCat said:
You're absolutely correct, Mississippi isn't California, thank God! :clap:(BTW - I'm from St. Louis, so snarky comments about The Magnolia State really don't offend me.)

Although California may be a few hundred light years ahead of Mississippi in their history of civil rights and freedoms, Mississippi is only looking at a $480M budget deficit for 2010, while California is looking at a $33.9B shortfall. The Magnolia State may have been behind the curve in civil rights, but they're far and away ahead of The Golden State in terms of governmental fiscal responsibility! :D
Click to expand...

Poverty

1. Mississippi :

Poverty Rates in Mississippi: Poor People are Isolated to Areas Along Mississippi River | Suite101.com

With a poverty rate of 19.3%, Mississippi has the highest poverty rate in the United States, just ahead of Louisiana.
Where the Worst Poverty in Mississippi Occurs

Critical poverty rates in Mississippi are very isolated on the western side of Mississippi along the Mississippi River.

Counties that are considered to have critical poverty rates have poverty rates which are at least 50% higher than the state average. To have a county poverty rate that much higher than the highest state poverty rate in the United States means a lot.

Read more: Poverty Rates in Mississippi: Poor People are Isolated to Areas Along Mississippi River | Suite101.com
Click to expand...

2. California :

Poverty Rates in California: The Working Poor in Major Cities are Hurt More | Suite101.com

With a poverty rate of 13.2%, California has the 17th highest poverty rate in the country.

This is just slightly better than the poverty rate of Montana, but just slightly higher than the poverty rate of Missouri.

Though California is not as bad as other high population states such as New York or Texas, it still translates into a little more than 4,800,000 people living in poverty.
Where the Worst Poverty in California Occurs

Read more: Poverty Rates in California: The Working Poor in Major Cities are Hurt More | Suite101.com
Click to expand...

Amount of money the receive for every money they give :

Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar

1. Missippi :

Mississppi 1.70
Click to expand...

1. California :

California 0.83
Click to expand...

All this talk about personal responsibility when states like Mississippi piggyback the richer states and still remain the poorest. You're the very definition of welfare states. Please do not come here talking about money to make your case. You're really messing with the wrong dog. California simply isn't in the same league as Mississippi. You want to talk about responsibility? Write to your Governors and tell them to stop, as Republicans like to say when it suits them, 'stealing' money.

Anyway... the point I was trying to make previously - which apparently went past you like a Randy Johnson 4-seam fastball - is that if a special-interest group keeps bringing a previously defeated issue to the ballot time and time again, they run the very real risk of not having it passed, and encountering voter backlash at having to re-vote down an issue that was previously voted down, resulting in a greater margin of defeat.
Click to expand...

And as I've explained to you. In California the very opposite has happened. Every year the pro-gay marriage movement gains more support. That you fail to acknowledge that California is not Mississippi because of a silly analogy regarding being unable to drink is ridiculous. Two different issues. Two different states. Two different ruling ideologies.

If you choose to accept that as political fact, or write it off as merely endemic to us redneck, trailer park livin', incestuous, white trash, rednecks is wholly up to you. Just try not to act too surprised should Prop #8 fail again in 2010.
Click to expand...

If it does I will bet you anything it will be by a smaller margin then before.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
I think what the court did was right, in light of the constitutional amendment, but I personally believe the amendment itself was wrong and an affront to civil liberty.
Click to expand...

Actually, the state supreme court got it wrong. Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and States are not allowed to violate the Constitution.

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. - 14th Amendment
Click to expand...

We need a gutsy court ruling, like the Burger court's landmark decision in Roe v Wade (1973), to strike down all marriage laws in this country as unconstitutional. Denying marriage based upon gender denies those individuals equal protection of the law.

Will SCOTUS take it up? I don't see it right now, because this court doesn't have what it takes to do the right thing; and the right thing in this case would be a very explosive ruling.

There are still too many bigots in this country who feel laws should be based upon emotion and not the Constitution. Such irrational thinking needs to dwindle to a minority before the Supremes will work up the nerve to strike down marriage laws and force States to recognize gay marriage.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Actually, the state supreme court got it wrong. Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and States are not allowed to violate the Constitution.



We need a gutsy court ruling, like the Burger court's landmark decision in Roe v Wade (1973), to strike down all marriage laws in this country as unconstitutional. Denying marriage based upon gender denies those individuals equal protection of the law.

Will SCOTUS take it up? I don't see it right now, because this court doesn't have what it takes to do the right thing; and the right thing in this case would be a very explosive ruling.

There are still too many bigots in this country who feel laws should be based upon emotion and not the Constitution. Such irrational thinking needs to dwindle to a minority before the Supremes will work up the nerve to strike down marriage laws and force States to recognize gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Vive the revolution! Vive the liberal committee on public safety!

There are still too many liberals who think constitutions should be based on what they damn well feel like rather than established and original meanings. As the equal protection clause was not meant to include GM and has never done so your argument is fallacious. You are in effect advocating the arbitrary power of the federal judiciary be used to override the rule of law and the constitution to validate your own political ideology.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Vive the revolution! Vive the liberal committee on public safety!

There are still to many liberals who think constitutions should be based on what they damn well feel like rather than established and original meanings. As the equal protection clause was not meant to include GM and has never done so your argument is fallacious. You are in effect advocating the arbitrary power of the federal judiciary be used to override the rule of law and the constitution to validate your own political ideology.
Click to expand...

Guess what? I'm not a liberal.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Guess what? I'm not a liberal.
Click to expand...
You are clearly socially liberal and have liberal, as in the modern meaning of various forms of social liberalism, social democracy and such, ideas on gov't. You are no traditionalist or social conservative nor have such ideas on gov't certainly.

I did not directly call you one though.
 
Wessexman said:
As the equal protection clause was not meant to include GM and has never done so your argument is fallacious. You are in effect advocating the arbitrary power of the federal judiciary be used to override the rule of law and the constitution to validate your own political ideology.
Click to expand...

The Equal Protection Clause says what it says and its meaning is quite clear: No State shall.. ..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A lack of any previous rulings does not invalidate any future rulings.

If you don't like it, then amend the Constitution and place restrictions upon the Equal Protection Clause. Right now, no such restrictions exist.

The 14th Amendment itself, is rather lengthy; so it wouldn't have been difficult for those drafting it to place restrictions upon it. Since they didn't, it's ludicrous to think that restrictions exist just because the amendment was primarily drafted to protect the rights of former slaves.
 
Wessexman said:
You are clearly socially liberal and have liberal, as in the modern meaning of various forms of social liberalism, social democracy and such, ideas on gov't. You are no traditionalist or social conservative nor have such ideas on gov't certainly.

I did not directly call you one though.
Click to expand...

I am clearly libertarian. Government has no right to trample upon the rights of individuals; nor does the federal government have the right to usurp the powers of the states. The latter is hardly a liberal position.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I am clearly libertarian. Government has no right to trample upon the rights of individuals;
Click to expand...
And these rights you interpret as a social liberal.



The latter is hardly a liberal position.
Click to expand...
It is also one your hardly seem to uphold.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The Equal Protection Clause says what it says and its meaning is quite clear: No State shall.. ..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
So as I showed above one can hardly be specific about equality so one only has recourse to original and longtime interpretation of that clauses meaning to know what is about. Anything else will be an attack on the rule of law, it will be the judiciary randomly redefining what the clause means.
 
Gay people in California can get a Domestic Partnership, and have the same rights as Married people. The only difference is they can't say "married". That's it, that's all, the whole suit was about a word.
 
Wessexman said:
And these rights you interpret as a social liberal.

It is also one your hardly seem to uphold.
Click to expand...

I believe in maximum individual liberty. Individuals have the right to do anything they please, so long as it does not infringe upon the right of others to do as they please. Social liberals don't believe that. They'd place many prohibitions and harsh restrictions upon such rights.

Tell me how abolishing over half the federal government and turfing those powers to the States is not upholding so-called "State's Rights"?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I believe in maximum individual liberty. Individuals have the right to do anything they please, so long as it does not infringe upon the right of others to do as they please.
Click to expand...
This is a socially liberal or atomistic viewpoint or at least I'd call it that.

Social liberals don't believe that. They'd place many prohibitions and harsh restrictions upon such rights.
Click to expand...
They share it atomistic individualism and most of its conclusions, to some degree at least, when considering the social realm.

Tell me how abolishing over half the federal government and turfing those powers to the States is not upholding so-called "State's Rights"?
Click to expand...
In several threads I have seen you trying to defend or support more federal power, particularly that of the judiciary. Perhaps that is an unrepresentative sample of your views but it has been my experience of them.
 
Kandahar said:
The point is that you CANNOT create two parallel institutions even if you make them equal under the law (which they aren't). "Separate but equal" institutions are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Is a minority housing grant unconstitutional?
 
April Fool said:
Gay people in California can get a Domestic Partnership, and have the same rights as Married people. The only difference is they can't say "married". That's it, that's all, the whole suit was about a word.
Click to expand...

It's more than a word. Domestic partnerships are ineligible for over 1,100 federal benefits conferred upon married couples.

Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. - GAO
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
All this talk about personal responsibility when states like Mississippi piggyback the richer states and still remain the poorest. You're the very definition of welfare states. Please do not come here talking about money to make your case. You're really messing with the wrong dog. California simply isn't in the same league as Mississippi. You want to talk about responsibility? Write to your Governors and tell them to stop, as Republicans like to say when it suits them, 'stealing' money.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to even begin to try to how illustrate how poverty stricken this state actually is, it's astounding the conditions that some people still live in in this day and age. However, there are two little things you overlooked when you posted your data and drew your conclusion --

First, California has a population of 36,756,666 according to the latest census figures. Mississippi has a population of 2,998,618 - which makes this state about the size of the Sacramento and Modesto Metropolitan Statistical Areas combined. Or, put another way, California has 12.25 times the population of Mississippi. Needless to say, California has a significantly larger tax base, more industry, and generates more revenue. California is like the New York Yankees of the fifty states - a huge revenue stream.

Secondly, instead of using info from some unknown group with an agenda, let's look at what Uncle Sam himself says, shall we? According to the Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2005 published by the Census Department - Mississippi is 11th on the list, behind other more noteworthy states such as Wyoming, Alaska, New York, North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Rhode Island in the amount of federal aid received per capita.

If you look at the FAS data for 2006 here, you'll see that Mississippi moved up into the #3 position. In 2007 here, Mississippi dropped down a slot to #4.

But, before you jump to conclusions about how that proves Mississippi is a welfare state and lives off of tax revenues from other states, keep in mind one little thing that occurred to cause this sudden jump in per capita Federal spending -- here's a hint... seven letters, starts with a "K", and tore the bejeezus out of the Gulf coast in September of 2006.

As before, this is a poor state, no doubt about it. They're trying to attract industry to the "New South", and prior to the economic downturn of recent had managed to build a huge Nissan/Infiniti auto plant, as well as a Toyota engine manufacturing plant.

It takes time to undo years of neglect and bring Mississippi into the 21st century, but slowly but surely we're getting there.

And as I've explained to you. In California the very opposite has happened. Every year the pro-gay marriage movement gains more support. That you fail to acknowledge that California is not Mississippi because of a silly analogy regarding being unable to drink is ridiculous. Two different issues. Two different states. Two different ruling ideologies.
Click to expand...

You never took any Political Science classes in college, did you? Regardless of the issue, the principal is still the same - bring a defeated issue to the ballot too many times, and you can encounter voter backlash. If you can't grasp that concept - irrrespective of the state, issue, or ideology - then I really can't explain it to you.

If it does I will bet you anything it will be by a smaller margin then before.:2wave:
Click to expand...

We will see, we will see.

BTW - FWIW, I support same-sex marriage. I see no reason why a homosexual couple shouldn't be allowed to marry and be as miserable as we hetrosexual couples are...

Woof, woof.
animal-smiley-037.gif
 
Wessexman said:
In several threads I have seen you trying to defend or support more federal power, particularly that of the judiciary. Perhaps that is an unrepresentative sample of your views but it has been my experience of them.
Click to expand...

The judiciary is an equal branch of government. I'm getting sick and tired of watching individual rights being trampled upon by both state and federal government. The judiciary has the right to intervene to protect such rights and I welcome it whenever it happens.

Where we differ is what we believe rights to be. If you don't see it as a right, naturally you'd view intervention by the judiciary as judicial activism; ie, legislating from the bench. Whereas, if I see it as a right, then it isn't judicial activism when the courts intervene to protect it.
 
Ethereal said:
Is a minority housing grant unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Any grant that uses tax dollars and is awarded to a specific group, thereby disqualifying all other groups, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
 
There are way to many pages to read through it all so I'll just say this based on the first few pages. (vbulletin really needs thread specific searches that returns pages instead of dropping you off on page 1 every time).

I see no problem with this being on the ballot every year a following large enough is able to get it on the ballot. I would also have no problem with those wishing to overturn it having it on the ballot once this passes. Why? Because the government shouldn't be able to dictate what citizens can and cannot vote on if there is a large enough following wanting to vote on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom