California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Orius said:
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.

Under Prop8 gays have all the civil rights, so there's nothing left to fight for, they won.

Orion · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
Under Prop8 gays have all the civil rights, so there's nothing left to fight for, they won.

I'm not going to go down that line of discussion with you Jerry. You know damn well what I mean, even if you disagree with it.

hazlnut · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
Under Prop8 gays have all the civil rights, so there's nothing left to fight for, they won.

You didn't do your homework. I'm going to have to mark you down for that.

Seriously, get better informed or get off the thread. By just repeating something that is factually incorrect, you're not adding anything the discussion.

'The Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor!!" Get it? You sound ridiculous.

Goobieman · May 27, 2009

Can anyone explain to me how the CASC decision was unsound?
That is, can you tell me how the decision was wrong?

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Orius said:
I'm not going to go down that line of discussion with you Jerry. You know damn well what I mean, even if you disagree with it.

Yeah you're talking about social issues on a legal thread, don't you see the error there?

winston53660 · May 27, 2009

Goobieman said:
Can anyone explain to me how the CASC decision was unsound?
That is, can you tell me how the decision was wrong?

Because they are right wing activist judges:2razz:

Just kidding, they ruled on the Constitution twice one time in favor of gay marriage and one time against after the Constitution was amended.

Jerry · May 27, 2009

hazlnut said:
You didn't do your homework. I'm going to have to mark you down for that.

Seriously, get better informed or get off the thread. By just repeating something that is factually incorrect, you're not adding anything the discussion.

'The Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor!!" Get it? You sound ridiculous.

I've already linked-to and quoted CA statutes, case law, credible 3rd party legal advice sites explaining various aspects of Domestic Partnership...etc...what have you don except come on at the end and troll?

Orion · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
Yeah you're talking about social issues on a legal thread, don't you see the error there?

Because the legal issue is a social issue? :roll:

You can hide behind the guise of concrete legality all you want by saying that gays already have equal rights via heterosexual marriage, but that is not equal rights to homosexuals which is why the fight is happening in the first place. Repeating that idea over and over is simple denial of reality, even though it has a nice catch.

The fact that the Constitution didn't mention marriage at all until Prop 8 means that it is actually heterosexuals who created the new right for themselves. Of course, you'll then argue that the precedent is tradition... but since we're talking in a "legal thread", that's not valid.

The very legality of this is subjective and open to interpretation since it is a new issue, and it is bound to take aspects of the social and legal realms into consideration. I don't see how you can sterilize the issue by making such an arbitrary separation.

Fact is, heterosexuals want a unique right created for themselves, and they've accomplished that through popular activism. Now gays have the right to continuing lobbying for the ballot at every single opportunity until equality is demonstrated. It's that simple.

Singularity · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
Under Prop8 gays have all the civil rights, so there's nothing left to fight for, they won.

I dunno, I still think there are a few hurdles to cross. I personally would love to see us start focusing more on helping those who are opposed to gay marriage to see things our way, and I think the way to do that is through kindness, respect, and exposure. We must understand that some may never change, but there are plenty of folks who will if we are willing to talk openly and diplomatically about the issue. If we can manage to do that, then I think we should begin pushing for acceptance on a national level.

I've read your arguments on this subject, Jerry, and you make good points. If I may be so bold, you seem like the kind of person who could put aside any presuppositions and be willing to give homosexual couples a fair shot if gay marriage became legal in your state. But if we disrespect your beliefs and start blasting away at those who currently disagree with us on the issue... Well, I guess it would be difficult to convince anyone under those circumstances.

Goobieman · May 27, 2009

winston53660 said:
Because they are right wing activist judges:2razz:

:rofl

Just kidding, they ruled on the Constitution twice one time in favor of gay marriage and one time against after the Constitution was amended.

This ruling didnt have anything to do wirth the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage, but the procedure under which the amendment to that effect was created/passed.

How were they wrong?

winston53660 · May 27, 2009

Goobieman said:
:rofl

This ruling didnt have anything to do wirth the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage, but the procedure under which the amendment to that effect was created/passed.

How were they wrong?

I don't think they were wrong. The CA Constitution says no gay marriage now. Even though I fully support gay marriage rights that is what the Constitution says now.

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Kandahar said:
Jerry said:

As I keep saying, the fight is sociological, not legal.

This is not the right place to fight for social acceptance since that is not something a court can grant.

Click to expand...

The government CAN grant them equality under the law. Social acceptance is completely different. It is the gay marriage OPPONENTS who are attempting to equate the two.

Oh, only the opponents, aye, yeah check this post out...

Orius said:
Because the legal issue is a social issue? :roll:

You can hide behind the guise of concrete legality all you want by saying that gays already have equal rights via heterosexual marriage, but that is not equal rights to homosexuals which is why the fight is happening in the first place. Repeating that idea over and over is simple denial of reality, even though it has a nice catch.

The fact that the Constitution didn't mention marriage at all until Prop 8 means that it is actually heterosexuals who created the new right for themselves. Of course, you'll then argue that the precedent is tradition... but since we're talking in a "legal thread", that's not valid.

The very legality of this is subjective and open to interpretation since it is a new issue, and it is bound to take aspects of the social and legal realms into consideration. I don't see how you can sterilize the issue by making such an arbitrary separation.

Fact is, heterosexuals want a unique right created for themselves, and they've accomplished that through popular activism. Now gays have the right to continuing lobbying for the ballot at every single opportunity until equality is demonstrated. It's that simple.

Orius, I didn't say the situation was equal because gays can participate in opposite-sex marriage.

I said the situation was equal because gays have Domestic Partnership.

All those rights you were just ranting about: gays have them, right now, even under Prop8. They have their rights, they won, it's over.

Cardinal · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
Orius, I didn't say the situation was equal because gays can participate in opposite-sex marriage.

I said the situation was equal because gays have Domestic Partnership.

Which, of course, the gay marriage debate is not even about. But you knew that already.

Orion · May 27, 2009

Jerry said:
I said the situation was equal because gays have Domestic Partnership.

It's not equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage said:
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

One other important thing. A domestic partnership is not transferrable to many other nations, or even other States, in the way that a marriage would be. Marriage licensing is "stronger" for this reason, or even civil unions which, as of now, are outlawed for gays.

Also, the term "marriage" is significant to a lot of people, such as gays who are religious. They should have the ability to get married in the church of their faith if that church is willing to perform the ceremony. As it stands, they cannot do that because the law makes the decision for all churches. IMO this also steps upon the religious freedoms of churches and their communities who are in favor of same-sex marriage, and there are many.

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Singularity said:
I dunno, I still think there are a few hurdles to cross.

Legaly speaking, yeah, there's a few wrinkles in the Domestic Partnership law that need to be ironed out, sure.

Singularity said:
I personally would love to see us start focusing more on helping those who are opposed to gay marriage to see things our way, and I think the way to do that is through kindness, respect, and exposure. We must understand that some may never change, but there are plenty of folks who will if we are willing to talk openly and diplomatically about the issue. If we can manage to do that, then I think we should begin pushing for acceptance on a national level.

I've read your arguments on this subject, Jerry, and you make good points. If I may be so bold, you seem like the kind of person who could put aside any presuppositions and be willing to give homosexual couples a fair shot if gay marriage became legal in your state. But if we disrespect your beliefs and start blasting away at those who currently disagree with us on the issue... Well, I guess it would be difficult to convince anyone under those circumstances.

It may surprise you to learn that I don't oppose gay marriage.

I'm tolerant, and the very ****ing definition of tolerant allows me to express objection, so expressing my objection in no way means I oppose gay-marriage.

SD put the issue to a vote a few years ago, and I chose not to vote either way on the issue. I left that portion of the ballot blank.

I don't support gay-marriage and because of that I'm accused of opposing it.
I don't buy into the bull**** surrogate arguments presented in these threads by pro-gm and because I don't drink their kool-aid I'm accused of being a homophobe.

I practice tolerance, I refrain from injecting my personal religious opinion into law, and yes while I'm remodeling a gay couple's kitchen I treat them with the up most respect just as I do with every other client.

I know my motivations and if others can't see that I walk the walk with my religion then that's their problem.

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Orius said:
It's not equal.

One other important thing. A domestic partnership is not transferrable to many other nations, or even other States, in the way that a marriage would be. Marriage licensing is "stronger" for this reason, or even civil unions which, as of now, are outlawed for gays.

Also, the term "marriage" is significant to a lot of people, such as gays who are religious. They should have the ability to get married in the church of their faith if that church is willing to perform the ceremony. As it stands, they cannot do that because the law makes the decision for all churches. IMO this also steps upon the religious freedoms of churches and their communities who are in favor of same-sex marriage, and there are many.

I've already addressed that exact same ****ing list.
Edit: post 308

I gave credible links to evidence clearing up some of those misconceptions and misunderstandings, AND my requests for additional information which was summeraly ignored.

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Captain America said:
Y'know Jer, sometimes methinks that it is the GOP who wants to put the gay stuff on the ballots, alongside the candidates up for election. That brings more voters out to their side on election day. A subtle form of voter manipulation. The Libs do it too, only they use pot as their magnet issue.

It really shouldn't be up for a vote. It's only right to do what's right and let them have equality in all things. It should be a mandate. But it ain't the governments job to tell them no in the first place. It ain't the church's either. Getting married to somebody of the same sex OR the opposite sex should be THEIR choice. But the church has every right to NOT sanction it if they so desire. Big deal. :roll:

"Sure, you can get married IF..... " Who has the right to put an "if" in there? To me, that is beyond arrogant. I just don't understand why some people get their panty's in a bunch when gays ask for equality. Who's it gonna hurt? You? Me? I highly doubt it. Much adoo over nothing.

Well see that's why I don't vote on the issue.

I like to debate it, though...lots o fun there

Jerry · May 27, 2009

I should go pro-gm for a while and see how that is.

Hatuey · May 27, 2009

SpotsCat said:
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.

Here. I'll slim that ridiculous wall of text to a few sentences because you see to be unable to :

1. You were one of the poorest state out of a 50 state union in 2005.

2. Katrina hit.

3. Your poverty got worse and you became an even bigger recipient of federal aid by 2009.

4. How does this help your argument about 'personal responsibility' again? Considering you brought it up I'd love to know how you think it is the role of rich states to help out poor states like Mississippi. Isn't 'personal responsibility' about helping yourselves? Why haven't you? I find it odd that you'd bring such a word up coming from a place that is leeching off the rest of us. Listen. How about you do us both a favor. Admit you were way off and came up with a red herring you now have trouble swallowing like it came with a condom.

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.

Do you want to stop this now? As I've explained to you. California and Mississippi are not even close to the same. The example you cited is not the same. There are so many factors to take into consideration that what you brought up is a simply distraction. Please stop?

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.

Good for you?

Jerry · May 27, 2009

Hatuey said:
Here. I'll slim that ridiculous wall of text to a few sentences because you see to be unable to :

1. You were one of the poorest state out of a 50 state union in 2005.

2. Katrina hit.

3. Your poverty got worse and you became an even bigger recipient of federal aid by 2009.

4. How does this help your argument about 'personal responsibility' again? Considering you brought it up I'd love to know how you think it is the role of rich states to help out poor states like Mississippi. Isn't 'personal responsibility' about helping yourselves? Why haven't you? I find it odd that you'd bring such a word up coming from a place that is leeching off the rest of us. Listen. How about you do us both a favor. Admit you were way off and came up with a red herring you now have trouble swallowing like it came with a condom.

Do you want to stop this now? As I've explained to you. California and Mississippi are not even close to the same. The example you cited is not the same. There are so many factors to take into consideration that what you brought up is a simply distraction. Please stop?

Good for you?

And here I thought I he posted on the wrong thread :lol:

SpotsCat · May 27, 2009

Hatuey said:
Here. I'll slim that ridiculous wall of text to a few sentences because you see to be unable to :

1. You were one of the poorest state out of a 50 state union in 2005.

2. Katrina hit.

3. Your poverty got worse and you became an even bigger recipient of federal aid by 2009.

4. How does this help your argument about 'personal responsibility' again? Considering you brought it up I'd love to know how you think it is the role of rich states to help out poor states like Mississippi. Isn't 'personal responsibility' about helping yourselves? Why haven't you? I find it odd that you'd bring such a word up coming from a place that is leeching off the rest of us. Listen. How about you do us both a favor. Admit you were way off and came up with a red herring you now have trouble swallowing like it came with a condom.

You're so far off base, it's amazing!

Here's the deal -- go back through this thread and read my posts, all four of them. They're numbers 298, 307, 323, and 422.

Show me in any of those four posts where I used the term "personal responsibility", and I'll leave this forum immediately and never return. When you don't, how about you "...admit you were way off and came up with a red herring you now have trouble swallowing like it came with a condom"?

Do you want to stop this now? As I've explained to you. California and Mississippi are not even close to the same. The example you cited is not the same. There are so many factors to take into consideration that what you brought up is a simply distraction. Please stop?

I've never claimed that California and Mississippi are the same, and I'm extremely happy that they aren't. The example I used of a liquor referendum in Mississippi was to convey how voter backlash can have an unintended consequence on an election - no comparison to the same-sex issue in California was intended, other than to demonstrate an example of voter backlash, and how that might effect a possible 2010 referendum. Sorry that simple concept seems to have escaped you.

So how about you do us both a favor? Study a little political science, so you understand the basic theories, vocabulary, and concepts and then you can have an intelligent conversation without resorting to strawman arguments.

BTW - When you post a chart, it would be deeply appreciated if you'd make reference - either by hyperlink, or text - as to when you got the information from. Any chucklehead with an agenda can draw a couple of lines on a piece of paper and claim it proves something. Not to say that you'd do that, but as Ronald Reagan once said - "Trust, but verify." Thank you.

Hatuey · May 27, 2009

SpotsCat said:
You're so far off base, it's amazing!

Here's the deal -- go back through this thread and read my posts, all four of them. They're numbers 298, 307, 323, and 422.

Show me in any of those four posts where I used the term "personal responsibility", and I'll leave this forum immediately and never return. When you don't, how about you "...admit you were way off and came up with a red herring you now have trouble swallowing like it came with a condom"?

I'm talking about personal responsibility in terms of the state looking out for itself. In Mississippi Fiscal Government Responsibility clearly means being the poorest while demanding money from others. :2wave:

I've never claimed that California and Mississippi are the same, and I'm extremely happy that they aren't. The example I used of a liquor referendum in Mississippi was to convey how voter backlash can have an unintended consequence on an election - no comparison to the same-sex issue in California was intended. Sorry that simple concept seems to have escaped you.

And I've explained to you why this doesn't apply in the case of Gay marriage in California and support for gay marriage has increased as the years have gone by instead of decreased.

So how about you do us both a favor? Study a little political science, so you understand the basic theories, vocabulary, and concepts and then you can have an intelligent conversation without resorting to strawman arguments.

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

SpotsCat · May 27, 2009

Hatuey said:
I'm talking about personal responsibility in terms of the state looking out for itself. In Mississippi Fiscal Government Responsibility clearly means being the poorest while demanding money from others. :2wave:

Sorry pal, but that ain't gonna cut it.

Regardless of how you may define it, there's a huge difference between "personal responsibility" and "governmental fiscal responsibility" - which is the term I used in post #323.

As I said before, show me where I used the term "personal responsibility".

I'm waiting...

SpotsCat · May 27, 2009

Hatuey said:
I'm talking about personal responsibility in terms of the state looking out for itself. In Mississippi Fiscal Government Responsibility clearly means being the poorest while demanding money from others. :2wave:

Let's look at a couple of numbers from the Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2005, and from the Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2007 (hyperlinks posted previously).

In 2005, Mississippi received $5,168,358,000 in Federal money. California received $46,029,364,000 in Federal money.

In 2007, Mississippi received $8,239,349,000 in Federal money. California received $49,976,123,000 in Federal money.

Mississippi had a natural disaster that accounts for a huge portion of the $3.1 billion dollar increase. California's $3.9 billion dollar increase was because of... what?

Climb off of the high horse, boyo. California is sucking the giant Federal tit just like the rest of the states. Mississippi may get more money per capita, but y'all are slurpin' away at the Federal trough - in fact, California rakes in more Federal money than any other state! New York is second, but they're $6.7 billion behind the well-fed piggies in the Golden State (FASFY'07).

Bottom line --

With our $8.2 billion in Federal aid, we are only looking at a $480 million deficit for 2010. With $49.9 billion in Federal aid, California is looking at a $33.9 billion dollar deficit.

What was it you were saying about "governmental fiscal responsibility", something about how I should "...write to your Governors and tell them to stop, as Republicans like to say when it suits them, 'stealing' money"?

While :waiting: I think I'll have a :beer:

Wessexman · May 27, 2009

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
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.

Only as far as the separation of powers, rule of law and constitution permit.

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.

No we differ on how much we put our ends above using the means of arbitrary power, it is judicial activism certainly.

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

Jerry

Orion

hazlnut

Goobieman

Jerry

winston53660

Jerry

Orion

Singularity

Hung like Einstein

Goobieman

winston53660

Jerry

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Orion

Jerry

Jerry

Jerry

Jerry

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Jerry

SpotsCat

Active member

Hatuey

Rule of Two

SpotsCat

Active member

SpotsCat

Active member

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot