…and this is a 
The California court ruled today on the constitutionality of proposition 8, the measure that prohibited same sex marriage. Unfortunately, the court upheld the ban.
California should be embarrassed. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont allow or will allow same-sex marriages, and New York and New Hampshire are working on it. The trend is going one way, towards recognizing the civil rights of all individuals. Californians better get to work, you don't want Mississippi to beat you to the 21st century. (Although I will be quite pleased when Mississippi legalizes gay marriage, whenever that may happen and no matter what order the states accomplish it.)
Comments
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 2:11 PM
Sort of expected this all along. I'm not as outraged as many folks are, just because I never really saw any chance of getting Prop 8 overturned. The legal arguments always seemed like a reach. The bigger problem is the ease with which the CA constitution can be amended. That's one of the sources of the budgetary problems the state is facing (Prop 13), and is the source of today's ruling.
Folks are already gearing up for a campaign in 2010 to overturn Prop 8. Gonna be expensive and ugly.
Posted by: Theresa | May 26, 2009 2:11 PM
Disappointing, but not surprising.
Posted by: Zeno | May 26, 2009 2:12 PM
The notorious George "Yuriy" Popko (mercifully recently defeated for student body president in Sacramento) was on the television news a couple of days ago demanding that the California Supreme Court "uphold the will of the people." Want to bet that he changes his tune when Californians eventually vote to overturn Proposition 8 (perhaps as soon as next year)? Support for same-sex marriage has been growing slowly but steadily in California. Popko and his ilk are heading for the ash-heap of history. He just doesn't realize it yet.
Posted by: Bart | May 26, 2009 2:12 PM
Rule of Law: only when its convenient.
Posted by: Sauve | May 26, 2009 2:13 PM
Weak.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 26, 2009 2:16 PM
Way to go, California, becoming more like Utah every fucking day.
Posted by: SLW13 | May 26, 2009 2:18 PM
Believe me, we're embarrassed. And pissed off.
Posted by: SaraJ
|
May 26, 2009 2:19 PM
As a lifelong Californian, I am deeply saddened by the ruling, yet not at all surprised. I knew the State Supreme Court would wimp out on doing what was right. However, I know many people who will not give up the fight, and someday soon we will have equality here in California.
Posted by: Zeno | May 26, 2009 2:21 PM
The court also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed last year will stand. After the anti-gay groups catch their breath from celebrating the main decision, they're going to be pissed that those marriages weren't invalidated, recognizing that their continued existence provides the nucleus of a continuing effort to extend marriage rights to the entire California population. It's the seed of Proposition 8's destruction.
Posted by: JBlilie | May 26, 2009 2:25 PM
And I'm still saying it: There's no way that some one else's marriage can diminish my marriage! (Well, leaving aside the many X-Y marriages that offend me.) The point is to punish gay people by legal subterfuge.
Like one American I met whiel traveling the world said to me: "Americans go for the big stoopid."
Some schwein is right now on Talk of the Nation defending the ban. Nit wit.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 26, 2009 2:26 PM
I kindof agree with MAJeff up at comment #1 there... In the context of the California state constitution, the court's ruling is defensible (I'm not sure it's 100% correct, because it does indeed seem, as the dissenting opinion stated, that this contradicts the equal protection clause -- but I don't think it's totally ridiculous). The real insane thing is that California can just randomly change their state constitution based on a simple majority vote. WTF?!? That's insane.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | May 26, 2009 2:28 PM
California: sanity fail.
It'll get there. After the initial crushing sadness, I hope everyone stays optimistic. Californians wouldn't let themselves fall too far behind the rest of the nation in civil rights.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 2:28 PM
http://www.eqca.org/donatetowinmarriage
Posted by: CBeck | May 26, 2009 2:28 PM
Reading deeper into the ruling, the justices also question whether the state should be in the marriage business at all. While I would be ecstatic if 8 had been thrown out, I bear no ill will towards the justices. If anything, I hope this will raise awareness of the establishment clause complications that have their roots in the conflation of religious and civil marriage, andstart a serious movement to remove marriage from the law altogether.
Posted by: JBlilie | May 26, 2009 2:28 PM
And I'm still saying it: There's no way that some one else's marriage can diminish my marriage! (Well, leaving aside the many X-Y marriages that offend me.) The point is to punish gay people by legal subterfuge.
Like one American I met whiel traveling the world said to me: "Americans go for the big stoopid."
Some schwein is right now on Talk of the Nation defending the ban. Nit wit.
Posted by: JBlilie | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM
Sorry for the double comment above ...
Indeed!!!!!
Posted by: GonnaBeCool | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM
Whoa!!! To paraphrase #4 "Democracy: Only when it's convenient". Sadly, Prop. 8 passed. It is not the Court's place to amend the California Constitution. Proponents of equality in marriage should just chill.... work on convincing 3% more of Californians and then overturn Prop. 8 through the democratic process. Much better than becoming poster children of the rule of the robes (and I MEAN robes) gone amok.
Posted by: Walton | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM
This really isn't the state Supreme Court's fault. Proposition 8 - ridiculous and thoroughly unfair as it was - was validly passed according to the procedures laid down by the state Constitution, and is now a part of that constitution. Since fundamental constitutional rights derive their authority, by definition, from the constitution, an amendment to the constitution is, by definition, capable of restricting those rights. It was not, therefore, open to the court to find that same-sex marriage was still a constitutional right despite Prop 8.
The real problem here, as I see it, is the fact that the California constitution (and most other state constitutions in the US) are much too easy to amend. The whole point of entrenched constitutional rights is that they're supposed to be protected even against the will of the (temporary) majority of voters; their purpose is to protect the individual from the mob. Accordingly, a constitution should require a broad consensus before it can be amended (as the federal Constitution does by requiring ratification by the several states). Prop 8 is something that should never happen again; and, if you ask me, Californians who believe in civil liberties need to campaign for fundamental constitutional reform in order to make their constitution harder to amend.
(Here in the UK we have even worse problems in this regard, since we don't have a written constitution at all, so we have no "constitutional rights". Our system is based on the supremacy of Parliament; so if Parliament were to decide to enact a law legalising torture, say, or banning ethnic minorities from participating in government, then there would be nothing the courts could do about it.)
Posted by: GonnaBeCool | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM
Whoa!!! To paraphrase #4 "Democracy: Only when it's convenient". Sadly, Prop. 8 passed. It is not the Court's place to amend the California Constitution. Proponents of equality in marriage should just chill.... work on convincing 3% more of Californians and then overturn Prop. 8 through the democratic process. Much better than becoming poster children of the rule of the robes (and I MEAN robes) gone amok.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 2:34 PM
DO NOT RESUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS
Posted by: Roy | May 26, 2009 2:37 PM
Sigh. California's constitution is way too malleable. Maybe in 2010 it'll get overturned, unless those friggin Mormons get involved again.
Posted by: Bostonian | May 26, 2009 2:40 PM
I wouldn't necessarily criticize the court. All this is really because of the vote for Proposition 8, so the fault lies with the people of California, not the judges. There's little doubt this will be reversed: if you look at the pace of change in people's attitudes, I'd wager that a reverse proposition would go the other way in just a few years.
Not that people should be complacent about the issue - I'm just saying that the status quo is far from permanent and a court isn't the best place for this fight. They aren't in the business of making rulings based upon what they think the law should be (leave that for the right wing activist judges).
One bright side to this is that the court explicitly declared that existing same-sex marriages in California remain valid. Declaring them invalid was one of the aims of the hate brigade behind this proposition, so it's nice that at least that aspect of their crusade has faltered.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 26, 2009 2:43 PM
The ruling appears to be what knowledgeable pundits had predicted. I suspect that same sex marriage will pass in the next election, or the one after that at the latest. A lot of California's present problems are do to the ease of amending their constitution. I see nothing wrong with referenda for laws passing with a simple majority. But, like the US constitution, it should require a supermajority to change the constitution itself.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | May 26, 2009 2:43 PM
As a Utahn, let me be first to say...
/nelson
*Points in the mirror*
Ha! HA!
...
Awww that hurts.
Now I know why nobody showed up to my birthday.
/endNelson
Posted by: JBlilie | May 26, 2009 2:43 PM
Actually:
There is a serious equal-protection issue here. The reason we have the constitution, besides defining the goverment structure, is to protect the minority from the whim of the majority. (Read up on the debate over the Constitution.)
Here is the first clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:
Well, this applies downstream as well (note the extended debate from 1861-1865 over whether states could oppress a minority.)
I think clearly that the Prop 8 explicitly does deny equal protection: that was its purpose.
Posted by: Marcus | May 26, 2009 2:47 PM
As much as I would have liked to see it go, overturning a vote would also be fairly serious. It was 'the voice of the people.' Those people just need a bit of educating.
Personally I think domestic partnership should become the standard for all relationships. Let marriage become a religious thing that doesn't stop you become husband and wife (or whichever).
My wife and I were married by one of her college professors rather than any kind of priest. Maybe PZ needs to be marketing himself a little more. It would be a great excuse to get one of those funky priest hats that he is oh so jealous of. :)
Posted by: SLW13 | May 26, 2009 2:47 PM
Can I just give a shout out to Justice Moreno? There was one voice arguing for sanity.
"The Equal Protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian... As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect."
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2009 2:48 PM
"The real problem here, as I see it, is the fact that the California constitution (and most other state constitutions in the US) are much too easy to amend. "
The counter example, I believe, is Iowa, the only non-new england state to legalize gay marriage, where an amendment must pass two separate legislative sessions (ie congressmen vote for it, have to go get re-elected, and vote the same way a second time) and only then can be put on the ballot for approval. (The alternative, if you can't win over the legislature is to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the whole thing.) Putting hurdles in the way of an amendment means it takes stronger opinions, that must be sustained over years, to make changes.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 2:48 PM
Here is the first clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:
JBillie,
The arguments did not involve any federal constitutional issues. Legal activists have avoided any federal constitutional claims in every marriage lawsuit. They know they face a hostile federal judiciary (and the very real prospect of damaging decisions), so every argument has been based on state constitutional issues.
Posted by: abert | May 26, 2009 2:48 PM
California Supreme Court,Say gay - YES ?!
The video from the scene:California Supreme Court-video-online
Posted by: Ivar Husa | May 26, 2009 2:49 PM
I guess this means that Californians have the right to reinstitute slavery. The bible doesn't prohibit slavery, so why should the state?
Posted by: Marcus | May 26, 2009 2:51 PM
As much as I would have liked to see it go, overturning a vote would also be fairly serious. It was 'the voice of the people.' Those people just need a bit of educating.
Personally I think domestic partnership should become the standard for all relationships. Let marriage become a religious thing that doesn't stop you become husband and wife (or whichever).
My wife and I were married by one of her college professors rather than any kind of priest. Maybe PZ needs to be marketing himself a little more. It would be a great excuse to get one of those funky priest hats that he is oh so jealous of. :)
Posted by: abert | May 26, 2009 2:51 PM
California Supreme Court,Say gay - YES ?!
The video from the scene:California Supreme Court-video-online
Posted by: Ivar Husa | May 26, 2009 2:52 PM
I guess this means that Californians have the right to reinstitute slavery. The bible doesn't prohibit slavery, so why should the state?
Posted by: Sarah in Chicago | May 26, 2009 2:52 PM
To those saying that it isn't the job of the state supreme court to change the constitution, I politely suggest you're missing the point here by a country mile.
The ruling was whether or not Prop 8 was a revision to the constitution or an amendment, and hence required oversight by the legislature before going to referendum.
I disagree with the ruling because I would argue that Prop 8 was indeed a revision. The court had last year found that equality under the law, including the right of marriage, did exist in the CA state constitution for LGBT individuals ... hell, they actually found provision to recognise LGBT as a minority group on par with other minority groups. Hence, a proposition removing such is not merely an addition to the constitution (ie an amendment), but an actual change of meaning (ie a revision).
The defence against this, the court seems to say, is that because this doesn't effect a significant minority of CA citizens, it such doesn't constitute a significant enough of a change to be considered a revision. I can only presume that this is a defence against the charge that a similar proposition could be used to remove the rights of women, or of ethnic minorities.
Now, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, and as a lesbian I will totally admit to a having a horse in this race ... but it seems to me that the CA supreme court has tied itself around in a legal pretzel in order to not actually do anything to change the status quo ... it may be technically legally justified, but it's really just BAD LAW, and way over convoluted.
On a personal moral level, and a tad separate, I personally think it is fundamentally wrong for the majority to be able to vote on the rights of a minority by simple ballot measure and numerical majority. This is why we live in a republic with supposed protections against such, not a strict democratic mob-rule.
Nothing but bigotry won today.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 2:53 PM
The counter example, I believe, is Iowa, the only non-new england state to legalize gay marriage, where an amendment must pass two separate legislative sessions (ie congressmen vote for it, have to go get re-elected, and vote the same way a second time) and only then can be put on the ballot for approval.
That's how Massachusetts is as well. The other alternative is by citizen petition, and then it must receive approval of the legislature (1/4 instead of 1/2 as with regular amendments), and then approval by the voters.
I guess this means that Californians have the right to reinstitute slavery. The bible doesn't prohibit slavery, so why should the state?
No. The Federal constitution would prohibit it.
Posted by: JimC | May 26, 2009 2:53 PM
This is silly and never going to happen. Marriage is first and foremost a civil agreement. The religious coopted it years ago but the first marriage contracts are not of a religious nature. As a matter of history they are some of the first contracts period. What we need is to stop letting religions define what a marriage is and is not.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2009 2:55 PM
The court cannot amend the Constitution. The way to kill Prop 8 is to pass another proposition, this time without the Obama voter surge which gave Prop 8 an estimated 500K extra votes. Too bad they could not have gotten it added to the recent special election.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 2:56 PM
It's not so simple in California. The state makes a distinction between amendments and revisions. Revisions cannot be implemented without the Legislature's oversight. Start at page 12 of http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321
The California Attorney General was correct. The Supreme Court wrongly ruled that Proposition 8 was an amendment rather than a revision.
Posted by: John Hamilton | May 26, 2009 2:58 PM
By letting the existing marriages stand, the court was indicating that they found nothing wrong, in principal, with gay marriage. By upholding Prop 8 they were only saying that it did not break the rules for ammending the California State Constitution.
They are saying that we, the people of the state of California, need to nullify Prop 8, not the court.
Posted by: Carlie | May 26, 2009 3:01 PM
I'm waiting for someone to put up a ballot measure that would help balance the state budget by instituting a poll tax. Hey, all it would take is 51% of voters in an off-cycle election to pass it through, and based on this precedent it would be a-ok.
Posted by: Dave | May 26, 2009 3:09 PM
"Personally I think domestic partnership should become the standard for all relationships. Let marriage become a religious thing that doesn't stop you become husband and wife (or whichever). "
Why cede the existing ground to the religious? As has already been pointed out, marriage is historically a civil relationship and is today primarily a civil relationiship. I think marriage should seen as a strictly civil relationship. The religious portions of the relationship should be called "Mawidge" in honor of the late great Peter Cook.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 3:09 PM
I agree with PZ on many topics, but had the courts set aside the election results it would have been a horrible blow to democracy and would have made the equal rights fight something it should never become. Now we can focus on the task at hand and bring the issue back to the polls where way it should be fought.
Posted by: Carlie | May 26, 2009 3:11 PM
Now we can focus on the task at hand and bring the issue back to the polls where way it should be fought.
Um, no. It's called the tyranny of the majority. It's not a good thing to let people vote on the basic rights of other people.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | May 26, 2009 3:19 PM
I'm with Carlie here. Basic individual rights are not appropriately decided by majority rule - that's why we live in a constitutional republic. Simple democracy is not equipped to appropriately handle these issues. Especially so long as the citizen body remains undereducated and fraught with religious/social justifications for bigotry, we can expect to see further abominations enacted by democratic rule.
Posted by: John Pieret | May 26, 2009 3:24 PM
While I would have preferred a different outcome, what the California Supreme Court also did today was to affirm that the "core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process," which the same Court declared gays do have last year, still exist. The only thing that Prop 8 took away ... the only thing it could take away according to the Supreme Court ... is the designation "marriage" for that set of rights.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 26, 2009 3:25 PM
I agree with earlier commenters in that I don't think it's correct to lay the blame at the feet of the California Supreme Court; I think they probably made the legally correct decision in this case.
The problems are that firstly, the California constitution is so trivial to amend, and secondly, that the proposition passed in the first place.
Hopefully sanity will prevail in the not too distant future, and this abomination will be overturned. Happily, when that does inevitably happen, there won't be any cause for argument* since the legal fights will already be done as a result of this ruling.
*that doesn't mean there won't be an argument, only that it is very unlikely to go anywhere...
Posted by: Efogoto | May 26, 2009 3:26 PM
I am a Californian and I am tremendously disappointed that Prop 8 passed. I am not at all surprised that it has been upheld. Until we can redress this wrong, at least those marriages performed whilst it was legal are still recognized under California law. A small silver lining, but a reminder that there is some sanity to be found here.
Posted by: oldtree | May 26, 2009 3:26 PM
I have asked a couple of legal minds in CA what they think of the constitutional issues involved in the initiative and the decision. One had a wait and see attitude, the others didn't understand the ruling to segregate people again. Only one had any hope that US Supreme's would undo such a violation of law.
Perhaps the melting pot didn't have room for enough real people any longer. I wonder if the big apple (don't mind the maggots, thanks Mick) and Kalifornya attract a different sort of people now days? It used to be a good example of living and let live. Now it takes a back seat to Iowa. I know that Iowa is not like it's neighboring farm states. It has an excellent higher ed system and some really great towns and a history of progressive behavior by comparison to almost all it's neighbors. But it's Iowa and it is more progressive than California on human rights. Guess there isn't much more to say is there?
Posted by: Uppity | May 26, 2009 3:26 PM
My take:
* I routinely vote against propositions on principle, even when I agree as a matter of policy, because I don't think that Constitutional law should be made in that way.
* I think the case was correctly decided as a matter of law. I don't think federal law (EPC) helps either.
* Were I in charge, the government would be out of the marriage business altogether.
* If the government stays in the marriage business, I think that gay marriage ought to be allowed as a matter of policy, so I'll vote for a proposition overturning Prop 8.
Posted by: Buzz | May 26, 2009 3:28 PM
Next step is to go to Fresno, this Saturday, May 30, 2009.
Posted by: Buzz | May 26, 2009 3:29 PM
Next step is to go to Fresno, this Saturday, May 30, 2009.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM
@ Walton:
I agree. That's why Iowa's constitution can only be amended after what amounts to a three-year process, minimum. It's a means of making sure the people REALLY want it.And I will never gloat that Iowa got there first. There is a quiet pride in our accomplishment, but I am saddened for California, all the same.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM
It is the job of government to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the will of the majority. This ruling means that the system in place to provide equal protection under the law to all people has failed.
We should all be ashamed of California, our fellow citizens, and our country for allowing this to happen.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM
Only one had any hope that US Supreme's would undo such a violation of law.
Not going to the federal courts.
This was decided purely on state constitutional issues. There were no federal constitutional issues being argued. There's no basis for an appeal through the federal courts. Indeed, movement legal activists have worked to make claims based solely on state constitutional issues. They have been (until a recent suit by GLAD) avoiding the federal courts.
Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2009 3:33 PM
The problem is not with the California Supreme Court, but with California's ridiculous process for amending the state constitution. The court was just following the law. They can't change the law just because it's stupid.
Posted by: Steve M | May 26, 2009 3:36 PM
A sad day for Californians -
OK, Let's organize to overturn this odious amendment and, after that, let's toughen the requirements for bringing these "simple majority" referendums to the state's voters.
Many of California's problems are a direct result of this silly political tactic.
Finally, when are we going block influence peddling by wealthy out-of-state interests- like all those wacky, Utah religious zealots who think it's fine for an old farmer to have multiple wives, including girls under 18, but want to deny marriage between two same sex adults?
Posted by: eric | May 26, 2009 3:37 PM
Link to actual ruling:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF
As others have written, this was not really about gay marriage but about the referendum system for changing the constitution. In the court's words:
and
To which they find the answer is "yes."
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 26, 2009 3:41 PM
Dave #42 wrote:
I agree. Saying that we should just hand over the term "marriage" to the religious and let the non-religious have 'domestic partnerships' is like arguing that we should just grant that "citizenship" is only for Christians: non-Christians can be "legal participants," which will be the same thing, except without the positive connotations which come from being an actual citizen -- or having a real marriage.
What happens to atheist marriages -- are they automatically annulled? What happens when religious people of the same sex want to get married in the eyes of God at a Unitarian or other liberal church? Are these churches officially no longer considered 'religions?'
Marriage is not like Baptism or Confirmation. As JimC and Dave point out, it functions in the secular world. There is already a term for a man and woman committing themselves together in partnership with God: it's called "Holy Matrimony." I've also heard of "Covenant Marriages."
Gays and atheists can keep marriage: let the religious right have their "Holy Sacred Matrimonial God Covenants." They can then make a big fuss about how it's more special and real and true, and we won't care.
Posted by: ??? | May 26, 2009 3:45 PM
DO NOT RESUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS
WHY NOT???
Posted by: Quine | May 26, 2009 3:46 PM
I am going to encourage the women to go back to court and argue that they have standing that the general community does not based on historical discrimination. It took a long time for women to get to own property, which men always could, and then to vote, which black men got first, and then to run for office, etc. Now, they need to stand up and demand the right to take a wife, which again, men have always had.
That is a federal gender discrimination case, and can go, ultimately, all the way up. Of course, if they won on that, men could follow demanding the equal right to take a husband.
Posted by: SLW13 | May 26, 2009 3:49 PM
Granted, the court was in a tough position. But still, their decision was, let's face it, chickenshit.
While their position might be technically defensible, they basically decided that putting major limitations on the state's equal protection clause for a minority class of people did NOT constitute a revision to the constitution. And if you read Justice Moreno's dissent, you'll see why the majority's arguments on "revision" versus "amendment" are bullshit.
I'm an attorney in California, and all the other lawyers I've spoken to about this find the court's unwillingness to really engage in the issue of the state's equal protection clause flabbergasting.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2009 3:53 PM
This whole gay marriage debate seems to me to be an argument over semantics. I don't think you could find many people that are not willing to give gays the same rights as exist in a heterosexual marraige. However, it is the use of the term mariage that is at issue.
Somehow, people think that a civil marriage is the same thing as a religious marriage and that any ruling about civil marriage somehow forces the church to let 2 men walk down the isle. That is clearly not the case.
Essentially, the civil marriage is just the filing of the paperwork. You can do all of that without actually having the ceremony with your familiy and the party and all of that. Just like you can go to a church and have the priest do the ceremony and you will be "married in the eyes of god" but not legally married.
These are 2 different things that just happen to have the same name.
I understand the reason why people fighting for "marriage" rights are against "civil union" rights (as spearate but equal has been dealt with a long time ago), but isn't the key here to get the rights and deal with the semantics later?
This whole mess wouldn't be an issue if the state just used a differnt word for all unions between 2 people then the church did...
Posted by: Dahan | May 26, 2009 3:54 PM
In 1865, a month after General Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, Confederate forces won the last battle of the war, which was fought near Brownsville Texas.
This is similar. The bigots keep fighting and will win some battles. What they don't realize is, they've already lost this war. Their time, like the time of the slave-owners, is done.
Enjoy your death throws, haters...
Posted by: Deiloh
|
May 26, 2009 4:00 PM
Most of the crowd I hang with here in California expected that 8 would stay for now. That doesn't make it any less disappointing. I'm glad that the summer marriages are being protected and look forward to the next vote.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 4:02 PM
Carlie @44 and Angel @45 - so what are you proposing? Where should simple individual human rights be decided in your opinion? I'd rather have a majority vote and win the hearts and minds of the majority, no matter how long it takes, than to have a handful of elites dictate rights or lack of them. That's how sharia law works, and I'd rather not have that system.
Posted by: DAG | May 26, 2009 4:04 PM
Defeating Prop 8 was the only thing I contributed money towards last election cycle. I feel strongly that it is discrimination
BUT
I hate this (typically right wing) trend to criticize the courts when they don't go 'our' way. They are simply applying the law that they have been handed. The amendment was legal and sound based on previous amendments. The court ruling is completely in line with the law, and the application of that law will eventually work in favor of gaining equal rights for everyone.
The amendment itself was embarassing and should have never passed. Supporters lied in their campaign and employed the most despicable fear tactics. They will lose, it is just a matter of time.
Posted by: Die Anyway | May 26, 2009 4:12 PM
It may take some time but eventually all of the states will have to come around. As married couples from the states that allow same-sex marriage follow jobs and family to other states, the pressure will grow for all states to accept all marriages. And now that Bush & Cheney are out, it could even become a federal mandate. All U.S. citizens treated equally sort of thing. They had to do it with mixed-race marriages, they will have to do it with unmixed-gender marriages.
Posted by: Leon | May 26, 2009 4:13 PM
I'm not at all surprised. I never expected the court to strike down Prop. 8. It's very open to interpretation whether the initiative was a fundamental enough change that it needed to first be approved by the legislature. I think it was, but it's something that can be reasonably debated.
In a way I'm glad the court didn't strike it down. If it had, the conservatives would've been in yet another uproar about "activist judges" and would have taken every opportunity to point out that the failure of Prop. 8 wasn't the "will of the people".
The issue isn't over yet, by a long shot--there will be more initiatives to legalize gay marriage, and sooner or later one of them is going to pass. I think sooner, since 8 passed by a slender margin and public opinion is drifting in that direction. Also, we now have a legal precedent for gay marriage here in CA--those who got married before Prop. 8 are still legally married.
Don't worry, Sane America. We're catching up; we just stumbled a bit.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2009 4:14 PM
@67
You are right. Prop 8 was technically "legal". But that is no reason for it to be allowed. If the majority in California votes that people shorter than 5'6" are freakishly short and should be imprisoned, should that law be allowed to stand, just because the majority voted for it?
How is this any different?
At some point, regardless of what the law actually is, it is up to the government to take a stand for what is right. Without that, we would never have ended slavery, segregation, given women or blacks the right to vote, etc...
Posted by: GregB | May 26, 2009 4:17 PM
As a Californian I am disgusted with the Yes on 8 bigots.
Unfortunatly, the Mormons were one of the most prominant groups of supporters for this hateful crap.
The New Mormon Motto:
No Blacks
No Gays
Bigots Welcome.
Posted by: Karey | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM
The one comforting thought I take in this irony is that the Mormons were so busy fighting fires in California that the entire northeast burned down on them. Maybe if I think of my state as taking a bullet for the cause I can live with it, but its hard.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM
As much as I would have liked to see it go, overturning a vote would also be fairly serious. It was 'the voice of the people.' Those people just need a bit of educating.
Not for the first time, I would recommend people who think this way to read John Stuart Mill:
The initiative process in CA is entirely fucked, and was changed to make it a simple majority so that conservatives could often bypass the will of the ELECTED representatives in the legislature (who were most often of a democratic bias).
Schwarzenegger himself tried to bypass the legislature via initiative measures a few years back. Didn't work out so well for him, thankfully, but still, the idea that one can so easily bypass their own elected representatives is just bizarre.
That's the real thing that should be re-ammended in the state constitution; the entire initiative process.
Posted by: Julian | May 26, 2009 4:22 PM
Given Prop 8, the court made the right decision, just like they did before it when they declared them legal. Having said that, as other have pointed out, allowing a Constitution to be amended by simple majority is not just stupid, its ridiculous, and I would humbly suggest that this ruling would make an excellent platform for a federal appeal regarding prop 8's discriminatory nature.
Posted by: Ray B | May 26, 2009 4:22 PM
I have to agree that the court's options were limited because Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. The shame lies with the citizens of CA, not the court. I voted against it...
Now that the court has ruled on Proposition 8, those opposed to it should consider the following strategies:
1) Prop 8 should be constantly referred to as the Dilution Of Marriage Amendment (DOMA), and they should insist that the full implications of this amendment be recognized and implemented.
2) They should file suit to demand that “Marital Status” be removed from all government and business forms used in the state. By vote of the people, as affirmed by the court, marriage is a category no longer applicable to all Californians. Those in Domestic Partnerships are not single, are not married, and are not divorced. You cannot have a demographic category that excludes an entire group of people. They should demand that the term “Marital Status” be replaced by “Domestic Status” with the following options: Single, Married, Partnered, or Divorced.
3) I am not a lawyer, but I believe the following is possible: Advocates should file a class action lawsuit demanding a full refund of all California state income taxes paid by those in a domestic partnership. The state tax tables only provide for those who are single, married, divorced, or head of household. By vote of the people, as affirmed by the court, same sex couples do not fall into any of those categories and cannot legally sign a return that forces them to select a category that does not apply to them. I would argue that the DOMA supersedes any prior laws equating domestic partnership with marriage. Unless and until the legislature amends the tax code and tables, then same sex couples cannot file a tax return. At the very least same sex couples can claim exemption from the “marriage penalty” (where married couples pay higher taxes than if each filed as single). And if domestic partners are allowed to pay lower taxes (as singles), then they would have rights that married partners do not.
4) In general, they should flood the courts to challenge every law that mentions marriage and does not explicitly include domestic partners. There is no need to be consistent. Depending on the law, they should demand inclusion when it is to their benefit (such as inheritance) and exclusion when that is to their benefit (such as taxes).
These strategies would both force California to deal with these issues to clarify the legal status of same sex couples as well as send a clear signal to other states that excluding same sex couples from marriage may actually weaken the institution, not strengthen it.
Posted by: James | May 26, 2009 4:24 PM
I understand and respect the position in which the CA Supreme Court found itself. The court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. The real culprit here lies in the people themselves who voted for this.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:24 PM
I'd rather have a majority vote and win the hearts and minds of the majority
again, if you think this was democracy in action, you're horribly mistaken.
I think you need to review why the US is a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 26, 2009 4:26 PM
If the people of California keep up with dueling proposition votes, maybe the Mormon church, which spent heavily for Prop 8, will end up broke.
I saw some idiot on TV today railing against gay marriage. When the news-babe asked him, reasonably, just what's so bad about gays marrying, he sidestepped the question and gave the usual fundie bullshit: Well, what about three people marrying? Or four?
OK, that doesn't bother me either, but why can't they answer the question? What the hell scares them about gay marriage?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:29 PM
The court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment.
this is incorrect.
Posted by: Doug | May 26, 2009 4:30 PM
I still do not understand the argument from gay-rights supporters to settle for civil unions as long as the government gets out of the marriage business altogether. Firstly, does this not suggest that non-religious marriages are different from religiously consecrated ones to our society? What am I supposed to ask wife, "Will you civilly unite with me?" This also ignores that marriage is an inherently secular institution, since there is no difference between e.g. Muslim and Christian marriages to our culture. The word marriage carries with it no religious connotation in our society - why capitulate to the bigots by offering this flimsy compromise that we know they will not take, because it IS the idea of gays and lesbians having recognized relationships at all that bothers them.
How does this solve anybody's problems?
Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2009 4:32 PM
What Doug said.
Posted by: 2nd class citizen | May 26, 2009 4:42 PM
Guess this means I no longer have to pay my California taxes since I don't have the same rights.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 26, 2009 4:43 PM
Just curious AssRobert Asshole, why do you fallaciously think we are intersted in what you think? Maybe if you had a real original thought...Nah, never happen...
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:45 PM
It must be that the notoriously conservative California voters and courts subverted the state constitution to forward their right-wing agenda.
moron, that essentially IS what happened.
look up the history of the Howard Jarvis initiative (prop 13).
Posted by: Doug | May 26, 2009 4:46 PM
Robert, "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 4:48 PM
ichthyic@77 - how was prop 8 passing not democracy in action? and how will the repeal of prop 8 be anything less?
True, the US is a representative democracy. But that has little or nothing to do with the passing or the repeal of prop 8 in California. Sure, prop 8 did have to pass district by district, but not it was not decided by representatives of each district as you seem to imply. Clearly it was the voters who decided, for better or worse. So, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Unless you're hoping that equality will pass or fail at a national level in the house and senate? Ok, then you're right. Or are you saying that the CA house and senate can vote down the changes to the constitution, in which case you'd also be right.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 4:50 PM
Loving v. Virginia: proof that Barack Obama is a gay Muslim!
Posted by: Rick R | May 26, 2009 4:52 PM
#71-
"The New Mormon Motto:
No Blacks
No Gays
Bigots Welcome."
New?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:55 PM
how was prop 8 passing not democracy in action?
simple:
if you spend millions to organize a specific clique to go out and vote, but that clique only represents say, 25% of the population, and you only get 35% voter turnout...
Is that democracy in action?
do you understand why we even HAVE a state legislature?
do you understand why the US is a representative democracy?
maybe, when you understand these things, you'll understand why a simple majority ammendment by initiative process is inherently fucked.
Posted by: MikeM | May 26, 2009 4:59 PM
I'm not surprised by the ruling, but I ain't happy about it.
The flaw really is with the initiative system in California. This flaw extends to other propositions as well. If we had an election in 2010, and it contained 4 propositions to cut taxes, and 4 more to increase spending, all 8 propositions would pass. Yes, even today.
It's been like this for 30+ years, since we passed 13.
At the root of this is the 2/3 vote requirement in the legislature. If there was no such requirement, the legislature would set the budget, instead of saying, "Well, we don't have the votes to do this here, so let's ask the voters...". They refuse to make the hard decisions, because they can't.
I'd say this if the GOP had almost a 2/3 majority too, by the way. I'm glad they don't, but my thinking is, hey, the voters have both houses at around 60-65% Democrat, they should make the rules.
We cannot let Meg Whitman win the governor's office. That would be a disaster.
Posted by: kim | May 26, 2009 5:02 PM
This ruling will tremendously piss of the opponents in due time, when they will notice that they spend 80 million to buy themselves a single word, marriage. It will not do anything about rights, and I guess that soon there will be lawsuits revolving around the exact rights enshrined in the non-marriage variant for gays. And then they will notice that they have nothing than the word. A fucking expensive word.
Posted by: DiscomBob | May 26, 2009 5:02 PM
Bah!- call the traditional institution between a man and a woman marriage, call an equivalent relationship between 2 same sex something else, pass a law stating that one is equal to the other as far as the law (in all it's aspects) is concerned and be happy. It will keep the traditionalists happy and provide everything that is being sought by the advocates of 'gay' marriage (except the same name, a rose is a rose is a rose etc.) You then let the culture sort out how each institution is referred to in common parlance- either the relationship will come to be called a single name regardless of gay or straight, or a differentiation will serve a purpose and be part of the language.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 5:09 PM
It may be fucked, but it is still democracy in action. I'm sorry that more people could not be persuaded to vote "correctly". But it is still democracy, which has always been corrupted by power and money. Did you want something else?
So let's put our shoulder to the wheel and get it on the agenda again, and make them spend another gumpteen million to protect marriage. And sooner or later we win in either California, or Louisiana. I'm not willing to take a bet on which will happen first.
Illinois will likely be next.
And I'll Tocqueville your John Stuart Mill any day.
Posted by: Rick R | May 26, 2009 5:10 PM
#94- You mean "separate but equal"?
Posted by: genesgalore | May 26, 2009 5:12 PM
smells like these here united states is no better a theocracy than iran.
Posted by: Charlie N. | May 26, 2009 5:14 PM
I'm a Californian, and I am usually able to feel proud to live in a progressive, socially tolerant, socially liberal state. But this diminishes that pride quite a bit, really.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 5:15 PM
Somnolent Aphid,
So it is your opinion that the US Supreme Court was wrong in overturning state laws against interracial marriage, laws which most definitely reflected the majority will of those states' citizens.
Posted by: Doug | May 26, 2009 5:16 PM
DiscomBob, see my post @ 80. Your position is even worse - advocating separate but equal? We decided way back in Brown v. Board of Edu that separate is NOT equal, because of the inherent cultural inequality the only gets reinforced when the government enshrines INequality in its laws.
Posted by: CarlosT | May 26, 2009 5:17 PM
This version of "democracy in action" would have seen Jim Crow laws last for all eternity. This is just another data point in the wealth of information demonstrating that the California state government is completely and absolutely worthless. In principle now, there's nothing stopping a group of citizens amending the state constitution to deny fundamental rights for any minority group they feel like, as long as they can get an initiative passed.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 5:19 PM
No, see, the Supreme Court decided that, in accordance with Sharia law.
Posted by: Orac
|
May 26, 2009 5:19 PM
Indeed. The legal arguments always seemed like a bit of a "Hail Mary" pass based more on technicalities than anything else. It's not surprising that the judges were loathe to overturn the will of the people. The real problem was not the Supreme Court, which had little choice given California law and its Constitution to rule any other way, as was pointed out before the ruling by multiple authorities. Indeed, from reports I saw the judges were careful to point out that their ruling does not imply endorsement of Prop 8, only that there was no legal rationale to overturn it, which makes me think that the justices weren't too thrilled with having to rule that way. In any case, it's pure hyperbolic nonsense to say that the justices should be "ashamed of themselves" for ruling to uphold an amendment that was legally passed by the people when they didn't really have legitimate legal grounds to do so. The law may be an ass in this case, but there was no legal rationale for the court to overturn it.
The problem was how easy it is to amend the California Constitution and that the people of California voted for this abomination. As others have said, it is the people of California who voted for this travesty who should be ashamed.
Posted by: DynamicUno | May 26, 2009 5:19 PM
I'm as frustrated as the rest of us by the decision, but I'm afraid I can't really come down hard on the court for this one. They are upholding the law, and Prop 8, for all that it's disgusting, passed legitimately. They ruled within the law.
That hardly means we should give up the fight; far from it. There is yet much to be gained.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 5:22 PM
Strange Love @89
1) you're an idiot.
2) you bring up a good point.
Loving v Virginia was overturned in large part due to the support of the churches. Quite the opposite of what we have seen in prop 8. But perhaps there is still hope that some number of churches, more than just the UUs at any rate, will come out in favor, that is to say, supporting equality. Perhaps that is when the tide will turn more strongly across this country.
Once the churches do that, then we can take a redaction pen to the bible verse that says god hates gays. oh wait, the bible doesn't actually say that does it. I have no idea what the churches are waiting for.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 5:22 PM
Except for the entirely sane rationale given by Justice Moreno in his dissent.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:23 PM
But it is still democracy, which has always been corrupted by power and money.
but this is not a democracy.
it's a republic.
...for a reason you STILL do not seem to fully grasp, even though you just said the above.
And I'll Tocqueville your John Stuart Mill any day.
that's just inane.
you haven't a clue what you're on about.
bye.
Posted by: kevinbbg | May 26, 2009 5:23 PM
This means that all civil rights are now subject to a majority vote of the population. The CA Constitution is now worthless.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:28 PM
Except for the entirely sane rationale given by Justice Moreno in his dissent.
which, btw, was what Jerry Brown had raised as the issue to begin with:
that the amendment would affect a different segment of the constitution (equal rights clause) than was the intended scope of the amendment itself (legal marriage definition).
It actually was a good argument, and exactly why the justices should have overturned the amendment and sent it back for a re-write.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 5:30 PM
As others have said, it is the people of California who voted for this travesty who should be ashamed.
You know, there was someone at this year's Oscar's who said something similar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HFRjamyua0
And he won for playing the guy who gave this speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbWDNM0wuAc
We lost today in California, a loss that was expected and that was not nearly as bad as it could have been (married same-sex couples remain so, domestic partnership benefits at the state level still exist on a pretty much equivalent basis). However, look at what else has happened in the past two months: the Supreme Court in Iowa gave same-sex couples access to civil marriage, a right which is currently being exercised. The Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto of a marriage equality bill. The Maine legislature passed, and governor signed, a marriage equality bill. New Hampshire legislators are currently attempting to negotiate a compromise bill that can get the Governor's support. The New York House passed a marriage equality bill supported by the Governor. The legislature in Washington passed a Civil Unions bill. The legislature in Illinois is on the verge of passing a Civil Unions bill. The Nevada legislature passed a Domestic Partnership bill (vetoed by the governor).
Things are trending in the right direction.
Posted by: mel | May 26, 2009 5:31 PM
from an evolutionary point of view homosexual marriage can not be equal to heterosexual one in benefiting the society. so civil rights - yes, but gays should accept that although one of us, their behavior is not something that should be encouraged and elevated more than its rightful place i.e. personal choice due to (in some people) to some genetic predisposition) which should be respected as a choice but no way allowed to be equal to the traditional marriage which is the basic (stem) cell of our society.
Also i think gays should be possibly accepted as full church members provided they agree that what they do is not the best for the society but they are accepted and loved nevertheless
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 5:32 PM
And I forgot to add: Washington, D.C.'s city council voted to recognize marriages between same-sex couples contracted elsewhere; The Department of State has announced it will start providing spouse-like benefits to same-sex partners of members of the diplomatic corps.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:34 PM
This means that all civil rights
are nowhave been subject to a majority vote of the population. The CA Constitution isnow worthlessbroken.It's broke, bad, but it's fixable with just another minor amendment:
fix the fucking initiative process!
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 5:36 PM
I'm not half as idiotic as someone who defends the democracy of Prop 8 but not the democracy of interracial marriage bans.
Assuming "Loving v Virginia was overturned" was a typo. If it wasn't, then I'm not even a quarter as idiotic.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | May 26, 2009 5:37 PM
Somnolent Aphid, if we handled everything the way you seem to see fit, there would still be Jim Crow in the south.
The majority of voters in the south wanted to stick with apartheid, it took the courts to make them leave the dark ages against their will.
They might well have voted to reinstate slavery.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:37 PM
from an evolutionary point of view homosexual marriage can not be equal to heterosexual one in benefiting the society.
you're both stupid and a bigot, as hard as you try to appear not to be.
congratulations.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 5:39 PM
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:41 PM
...oh and as to the relevance of Tocqueville...
"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
LOL
look at the history of the US since he wrote that, and tell me just how accurate he was.
Posted by: Doug | May 26, 2009 5:42 PM
Mel @ 111 -
Right, be the survival of our species depends on 100% of our current population of 7+ billion people reproducing.
Quite opposite the of what you are arguing, allowing gay marriage encourages the formation of family units, whether with surrogate birth parents or adoption, which is most decidedly good for our society. It is the FAMILY, not the marriage, that is the cellular unit of our society.
Posted by: Mu | May 26, 2009 5:43 PM
So, if next year there is a Proposition X to increase vote requirements for constitutional amendments to 2/3rd of votes cast and 50% of eligible voters, and it doesn't look like Prop 8 will be overturned that cycle, are you going to vote for it? Or is the weakness of the CA amendment process only something to be removed when "the time is right" for your cause?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 5:49 PM
and it doesn't look like Prop 8 will be overturned that cycle, are you going to vote for it?
well, I would if I was still there, that's for sure.
It's far more important at the moment to remove the broken initiative process.
work with the legislature to make constitutional amendments; that's what it's fucking there for.
Posted by: abys | May 26, 2009 6:11 PM
So it's currently easy to amend the constitution of California? How easy would it be to amend it so that all the proponents of Proposition 8 to have their families torn apart by having their marriages annulled by complete strangers that have never met him and would otherwise have zero impact on their lives, and vice versa?
Posted by: abys | May 26, 2009 6:13 PM
So it's currently easy to amend the constitution of California? How easy would it be to amend it so that all the proponents of Proposition 8 to have their families torn apart by having their marriages annulled by complete strangers that have never met him and would otherwise have zero impact on their lives, and vice versa?
Posted by: Brent Royal-Gordon | May 26, 2009 6:17 PM
The embarrassment is that Proposition 8 passed in the first place and is now embedded in our state constitution, sitting alongside anti-discrimination provisions like a swastika spray-painted on the Statue of Liberty. But given that this is the law, the California Supreme Court did the right thing in upholding it. They also did the right thing in not turning it into an ex post facto revocation of the existing marriages.
Remember, if a liberal court can arbitrarily throw out a constitutional term for not being progressive enough, a conservative court could just as easily throw out a term for being too progressive. Courts are important, but ultimately the only proper way to get the law changed is to change what the people believe the law should say.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | May 26, 2009 6:24 PM
PZ--Did you read even the opinion? The issue before the Court was not whether gay marriage is a good idea. Instead, the issue was whether the process that resulted in this law was appropriate under the California Constitution.
Unfortunately, in California only a simple majority is required to amend the Constitution. And that is what the voters did--they amended the Constitution to define that only marriage between one man and one woman is to be recognized.
While I whole heartedly think that gay marriage should be legal, the California Supreme Court did not rule on the issue of whether gay marriage is a good idea. Instead, they decided whether the process was correct.
Your post is a simple knee-jerk reaction. You should have at least glanced at the opening paragraphs of the opinion before criticizing it.
It is also worth noting that when the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, one rationale offered was that homosexual couples could obtain the same rights as hetero marriages. Therefore, equal protection required that we treat the both institutions the same.
Except in name only, Calif has been way ahead of the rest of the US with regards to protections affords homosexual relationships.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 26, 2009 6:39 PM
David C. Brayton, did you even read Moreno's dissent? Or is your comment, like Brent Royal-Gordon's, just a knee-jerk reaction?
Posted by: Ray B | May 26, 2009 6:59 PM
Having had a chance to scan the ruling, but not read it in detail, it should be refered to as the "Separate but equal" ruling. It seems the court has said that same sex couples' partnerships have a right to all the protections and recognitions as oppposite sex couples marriages and that the only difference is in the name. So opposite sex couples can call their partnership "marriage" while same sex couples cannot, with no other difference.
So, in addition to my previous recommendations, I suggest opponents of Prop 8 should sue every city clerk in the state to change the name of marriage licenses to "Marriage or Partnership License". Requiring a different license, especially if it had different requirements for issuance, would violate the separate but equal claim of the court. And if the requirements are exactly the same, why have two versions?
Posted by: NH | May 26, 2009 7:10 PM
I think it's the writer of this piece who should be ASHAMED.
Since when it is legal or ethical for a COURT to override a vote of the PEOPLE?
It's amazing what this country has come to.
Activist judges like Sotomayor are POISON to freedom and justice.
Sotomayor was the one who allowed the firemen who scored 99% on their tests to be passed over for promotions in favor of minorities who flunked their tests.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
May 26, 2009 7:14 PM
What I find interesting is how conservatives are all of a sudden huge proponents of democracy when it comes to gay marriage and Prop 8. One wonders where all those arguments for personal freedom and the republic go when it's someone who lives differently than they do. Not to say that gays and lesbians live a different "lifestyle", as the conservobots love to claim. But the sudden shift in sentiment over political organizations is intriguing...
This is not a good decision, and it appear the conservative sabotage of California is continuing unabated. Where CA used to be the catalyst for the rest of the country, now we have IA of all places (not baggin' just sayin'), beating CA to the finish line. I will say that IA allowing gay marriages now probably means the Prop 8 stand in CA is probably still limited, today's loss or not. IA is a borderline state in the redder part of the country, and yet gay marriage has survived the challenge there. I had hoped Prop 8 would fall to its deserved demise today, but maybe it will fall next year now. I hope it does. It's garbage law based solely on unfounded fears and bullshit tradition-for-tradition's-sake thinking.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 7:19 PM
Since when it is legal or ethical for a COURT to override a vote of the PEOPLE?
Fail.
Posted by: CarlosT | May 26, 2009 7:21 PM
@ 126: "Since when it is legal or ethical for a COURT to override a vote of the PEOPLE?"
Since 1789, or more formally, 1803, when the Marbury v. Madison decision affirmed judicial review as a central part of the functioning of the courts. The role of the courts is "to say what the law is", that is, to interpret the laws and decide if they are compatible with the Constitution. If they are not, they are invalidated, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Legislation passed by initiative is no different than legislation passed by the legislature in this regard; both are subject to judicial review and to being potentially struck down if found to be unconstitutional.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
May 26, 2009 7:23 PM
"...Activist judges like Sotomayor are POISON to freedom and justice..."
And thank you for revealing how much of a self-serving idiot you are. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are every bit as "activist" as any liberal judge you can spew. Conservatives have been allowed to get away with this talking point for far too long. Don't think you can come in here with your ALL CAPS and convince us of your shell game, that every conservative is just a regular dude making decision, but them libruls is all activists! Blow it out your ass. You're disingenuous in the absurd if you think your pet judges haven't been activists. I notice the conservobot talking points about Sotomayor are already in full swing.
I guess we're gonna here about "the poor firemen!!!!" for four weeks now. Where did you eat that one up? RedState? Free Republic? LGF?
Posted by: SLW13 | May 26, 2009 7:37 PM
Everyone who thinks majority opinions of the citizenry should be respected by the courts without question need to think about the logical conclusions of their position. Limiting the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should NOT be considered a mere amendment (rather than a revision requiring a 2/3 vote of the Legislature).
From Moreno's dissent:
"Under the majority's view, it is not clear what sorts of state constitutional constraints limit the power of a majority of the electorate to discriminate against minorities. As petitioners point out, "imagine if Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948), striking down California's ban on interracial marriages, had been decided on state constitutional grounds rather than federal constitutional grounds. And imagine if a bare majority had attempted to overturn that landmark ruling by enshrining the ban into the Constitution." Other equally unattractive hypotheticals suggest themselves... California's voters could permissibly amend the state Constitution to limit Catholics' right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (Art. I, sect. 4), condition African-Americans' right to vote on the ownership of real property (Art. I, sect. 22), or strip women of the right to enter into or pursue a business or profession (Art. I, sect. 8)."
And NH? Shut the hell up until you read a freaking history book.
Posted by: Evangelatheist
|
May 26, 2009 7:45 PM
I recommend that everyone read the Moreno "dissenting" opinion. It really eviscerates the not-very-compelling "majority opinion." Moreno gets props for this one, although I'm sure his chances at a SCOTUS nomination are dead now. I don't recommend reading the majority opinion as it's a half-assed attempt to show how "progressive" the court is because they ruled for gay marriage before. "I can't be a homophobe; I've got gay friends."
Side note that will probably get me yelled at: I don't agree with Sotomayor's finding in Ricci (fire fighter case). The city of New Haven was careful to draw up a procedure for promotions that was racially neutral and that successfully promoted minority candidates in the past. With this particular examination session, the target was moved (or better yet eliminated). This particular example is no different than the voters of CA amending the constituion: Equality should not be a moving target. Either you are equal or you aren't.
Posted by: JScarry | May 26, 2009 7:51 PM
As others have said, it's called the rule of law for a reason.
This is the same court that held that a prohibition of gay marriage was unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment was passed by the voters. The court wasn't ruling on their feelings toward gay marriage, they made it abundantly clear that they they were in favor. They were doing their job and ruling on whether the amendment was valid. And they reached the conclusion that it was.
Once again, PZ and the commenters don't seem to understand that the law isn't about doing what's right. It's about doing what is legal. Sometimes they are the same thing, but often they aren't.
The tide is turning so I expect that in the next election we'll have another amendment in favor of gay marriage that will pass. This court has made it clear that it will uphold it.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 7:51 PM
David C. Brayton has it exactly right. The question before the court was basically this, was prop 8 an amendment to the constitution legally enacted a majority of the voters of that state or was it a revision to the constitution which could only be enacted by a constitutional convention. I think we can all agree that within this limited scope they found correctly.
As for jafafa hots @113 (man, i loves me some of those buffalo wieners!) first, never assume that jim crow laws were limited to the south. second, the reason we don't have them today is that they were systematically struck down by the US supreme court. And when federal authority was challenged, in came the troops. So let's hope it doesn't come to that, maybe we've learned something, and that these issues can be solved by rationality and by democratic means.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
May 26, 2009 8:00 PM
When a conservative whines about "activist judges" what they really mean is "some judge made a decision that I don't like."
Posted by: Michael X | May 26, 2009 8:01 PM
Constitution, noun: a body of fundamental principles created to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority; like say perhaps Equal Protection Under the Law.
Prop 8, noun: a proposition that places inequality based upon sexual preference into a constitution that promises equality regardless of sexual preference, via majority vote.
Supreme Court, noun: a group of people who rule according to the constitution. (See line 1)
Some peoples conclusions: Well, they followed all the rules! I guess the courts can't be blamed. I suppose we minorities will just have to vote on our fundamental rights from here on out.
Good thing interracial marriage wasn't settled in CA. Or the right for an atheist to hold public office, or the right for an atheist to testify or etc, etc, etc.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
May 26, 2009 8:05 PM
While I hate that Prop 8 was upheld, the decision by the courts today passes muster. The review today was not reviewing constitutionality, it was reviewing whether the amendment could be brought in the way that it was. And in that light I don't think there was any way it was going to be overturned.
Posted by: Michael X | May 26, 2009 8:11 PM
Blue, the system is broken. If I can, through simple majority vote, legally change a document that causes it to enforce a ruling that is in direct conflict with its very purpose for being there, then I can only conclude that the system is broken.
The judges missed the forrest for the trees, as are many here.
Posted by: Erp | May 26, 2009 8:20 PM
Disappointed but not surprised. However I think the justices left it deliberately vague about the status of out-of-state marriages. In other words will same-sex couples who marry in Iowa, Massachusetts, etc and live in California be married in the eyes of the State of California? I think the justices intended for this to be legal though they didn't state it.
Posted by: CarlosT | May 26, 2009 8:22 PM
@ 134: "The question before the court was basically this, was prop 8 an amendment to the constitution legally enacted a majority of the voters of that state or was it a revision to the constitution which could only be enacted by a constitutional convention. I think we can all agree that within this limited scope they found correctly."
Actually, no, we can't all agree, especially since Justice Moreno laid out exactly the basis for disagreeing with that conclusion in precise detail in his dissent. Prop 8 eviscerates the basic fundamental constitutional principle of equal protection and as such is a major revision to the state constitution. The majority decided wrongly on the central question on the case.
Posted by: GreyTheory | May 26, 2009 8:33 PM
This one should (rightly) be set at the feet of the petitioners for laziness. They took the easy way out by filing a motion to overturn on procedural grounds rather than actual constitutional arguments. The first lawsuit should have been based on the EPC, but instead gave a small victory (hollow, but a victory regardless) to the anti-gay marriage forces.
Posted by: Michael X | May 26, 2009 8:34 PM
Well, I'm off to rehearsal so I'll leave with a clip from Carlos Moreno's dissent.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the ruling and the proposition to begin with. Whether the justices played within the current rules is irrelevant when the current rules allow a change that conflicts with the very purpose of rules to begin with.
The issue has been clearly stated by previous commenters. The Initiative Process must be revised and laws passed under it that are in direct conflict with the very purpose of a constitution must be overturned. To say otherwise is to leave your fundamental rights up for grabs to any majority vote.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
May 26, 2009 8:40 PM
The majority decided wrongly on the central question on the case.
Just because you don't like the decision doesn't mean they were wrong. The PROBLEM is the California Constitution which is too easy to amend (which, btw, the Court is REQUIRED TO UPHOLD by OPERATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION). The SECOND PROBLEM was the legal counsel didn't make some very key arguments regarding equal protection and went off into the weeds with others.
Which was why it was decided 6-1.
So, the bottom line is that the Constitution can be amended again. This time to over-turn Prop 8. And if you don't like it, change the fucking Constitution at a higher level to make this a Super-Majority issue AFTER you get what you want.
Some things most of you missed in your massive over-reaction, btw, is that all the decision did was to remove the word "marriage." The underlying rights were not harmed.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
May 26, 2009 8:47 PM
So it seems that bigotry can be enshrined in the CA constitution. Californicators must be so proud! Now, let's see how long it takes to outlaw inter-racial marriage. Narrow-minded, Orange-County security moms were one of the reasons I was glad to shake the dust off my boots when I left the state a decade ago. Another reason was the silly-assed ballot initiatives.
Posted by: Brent Royal-Gordon | May 26, 2009 8:52 PM
strange gods before me: It was implied in my post, but let me make a few things explicit.
1. I am a citizen and voter in California. I vote in every election and study every proposition before I cast my vote.
2. I voted against Prop 8, i.e., against the gay marriage ban. I considered it a no-brainer.
3. I will vote for any proposition that attempts to restore the right to a marriage to gays. And yes, I do consider it to be a fundamental right. (I also doubt it will take more than four years to be restored.)
Having said all that, I think that victory on this issue needs to come about the right way. The decision in "In Re Marriage Cases" was correct; the equal protection clause in the state constitution clearly overrode the statute. But this decision is correct too, because both clauses—even though one is right and the other is wrong—carry equal weight under the law.
The rule of law is vital. Outside the Enlightenment emphasis on a rational, discoverable universe, it is probably the single factor most responsible for creating the largely free, stable, wealthy, and equitable societies that dominate the West.
With just a little more time, this temporary injustice will right itself. It's deeply unfair that anyone should have to wait even one moment for their rights, but rushing to correct it immediately—putting the end of equality before the means of law—would in the long term do us more damage than it would avoid.
The rule of law is what makes our economy work. It is what protects us from tyranny. It is what allows us to draw the ire of the influential with impunity. It is how you and I can have this discussion without fearing retribution.
GLBT citizens deserve their rights. They will get them. California's constitution needs stronger protections on its equal rights guarantees. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens too—probably as a result of this case. These things will happen because the rule of law helps them happen, in a hundred ways, direct and indirect.
We must be very careful not to throw out the baby with the vile, putrid bathwater. Proposition 8 needs to be overturned, but it needs to be overturned the right way, lest we unleash a monster by mistake.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2009 8:58 PM
"Also i think gays should be possibly accepted as full church members provided they agree that what they do is not the best for the society but they are accepted and loved nevertheless"
There are many Christian churches which already accept gays as full church members and some which perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Those churches have as much right to religious freedom as yours and putting laws in place to enforce your religious views while outlawing their views is just plain wrong. To me this statement is equivalent to 'so long as they know their place'.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 26, 2009 9:00 PM
Brian @ # 63: Somehow, people think that a civil marriage is the same thing as a religious marriage and that any ruling about civil marriage somehow forces the church to let 2 men walk down the isle. That is clearly not the case.
That "somehow" consists of a large & multifaceted meme machine known as the religious right (I call 'em the hyperchristians).
Disinformation and agitation are their stock in trade. What you observe is "clearly not the case" is exactly what they've been telling their audience, a population self-selected for high levels of gullibility.
Follow the rants from FotF, CADC, AFA, FRC, OSA, et al, and you'll see a steady stream of "christians are under attack!" propaganda such as "Congress Goes After Pastors, Not Pedophiles" (literal headline from recent TVC release). The current "hate crimes" bill in particular has provoked spectacular hysterics.
The creationist wing of the hyperchristian movement gets the most criticism here and across sciblogs (and earns every byte of it), but those guys are refined and erudite scholars compared to their comrades-in-arms in the culture war.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
May 26, 2009 9:04 PM
So, if TX manages to shitcan McLeroy while CA continues to slide into the mire of bigotry and financial irresponsibility, how long do you think it will be before the Golden State will rank down there with TX, MS, and the rest of the confederacy?
The state has to do something with its ballot initiative fiasco. It has ruined state finances, state education and now equal protection. How about it CA? How about a ballot initiative against ballot initiatives>
Posted by: Larry S. Mills | May 26, 2009 9:05 PM
Your headline is blatantly unfair. The California Supreme Court clearly ruled properly on the law. While I am generally precieved by my friends and acquantances (lawyers & not - yes, I am a lawyer)as a raving liberal, the California Supreme Court had no real choice in this case. The Prop 8 proponents followed the established initiative process and won. This is one of the many reasons the initiative process is flawed (esp., for constitutional changes).
Blaming 'California' for being wrong on the result of the vote (the actual content of your post) is well-done.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 26, 2009 9:11 PM
I read it in the news today—
The Cali courts have had their say,
And if the gods have made you gay
No more can you get married.
The logic that the judges wrote
(Except in the dissenting note):
Fifty percent, plus one more vote
Gets any measure carried.
And so it is with great delight
I urge you now to stand and fight—
Our cause, you’ll see, is wholly right,
If I can be so candid;
The group that we will now oppose,
The proper person’s fearful foes—
Our enemies, of course, are those
Who choose to be left-handed.
In writings since the Ancient Greeks
Left-handers have been viewed as freaks;
They’re sinister—their form bespeaks
A tendency toward sin!
But now (he said, with evil laugh)
The court has simplified the graph:
If we can gather just one half
Plus one more vote—we win!
So join with me—we’re on a mission,
Seeking to restore tradition;
Sign our “Right Is Right” petition
And join the teeming throng.
Stand up! Say no to left-hand choice!
The courts are with us, so rejoice
And join right in, in righteous voice:
“If it’s not right, it’s wrong!”
A bit more rant, at http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/05/cunning-plan-thank-you-california.html
Posted by: MikeG | May 26, 2009 9:17 PM
Ah, damn! Now I'll have to learn to write all over again. Thanks Cuttlefish.
*signed soon to be ex-leftie*
MikeG
(I'm sure Jesus can cure me.)
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 9:34 PM
mel @ 109
oh no you didn't just go there. you might have meant from a fundamentalist biblical or koranic point of view. but you almost certainly did not mean an evolutionary point of view unless you didn't actually know what it meant.
Imagine, if you can, if you will, a counter myth to the ridiculous religiously tainted one that you've given.
Homosexuals, from an evolutionary point of view, are essential, yes essential, for the well being and survival of the species and are therefore highly valued in society. It should be patently obvious to the casual observer that homosexual genetic material, sperm and eggs, is extremely valuable, and because of its high value, individuals carrying this material demonstrate certain extravagant (from an evolutionary point of view) traits and characteristics both in order to signal their fitness and also to exclude the majority of potential mates from access. But in the case where they do choose to breed the genetic line is renewed and strengthened and humanity is restored.
Anyway, that's my myth and I think parts of it might be more righter than yours. homosexuality is here for a reason even if we don't know exactly what it is or how it works at an evolutionary level. it needs to be cherished for the magic that it is.
and i've learned to use blockquotes!
Posted by: Michael | May 26, 2009 9:41 PM
My only concern about Gay marriage is that ( given the association of marriage and children ) Gay couples having children and raising them with 2 daddies or 2 mummies means the child loses one of thier biological parents. Now thats a tragedy when its an unforeseen event but PLANNING to deny a child one of its parents just seems wrong.
I believe that ,sadly for the affected couples, being gay is a form of infertility that we can only cure by removing basic rights from the child produced.
Posted by: Anon | May 26, 2009 9:50 PM
Actually, Michael, it does not necessarily mean that at all. My lesbian neighbors had a son, and he had two mommies... and a biological father who was part of the picture.
On the other hand, I knew a (single) heterosexual mom who chose artificial insemination, who is raising a child with no daddy. Come to think of it, I know heterosexual couples who have used artificial insemination--would you also accuse them of denying the child one of its parents?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 26, 2009 10:19 PM
michael @ 153 - I was going to say that society pretty much settled this in 1982 with that wildly lauded Murphy Brown episode. We all know it doesn't take two parents, let alone two parents of the same gender, to raise a child.
But then you end with this
and I wonder what the heck you could have meant by that. Removing the basic rights from the child? Could you illuminate that a little please?Posted by: crowepps | May 26, 2009 10:20 PM
Considering that most of the children raised by gays are adopted, and are variously children whose biological daddy has abandoned the mother and fled all responsibility, children whose mother cannot support them, orphans and foster children removed from abusive/neglectful homes, the fact that the child has 'lost' the origianl daddy/mummy set actually is a plus for society in general. Considering the alternatives available to them, orphaned, abandoned, abused or neglected children are far better off with two daddies/ two mummies than with none at all.
Posted by: stogoe | May 26, 2009 10:31 PM
The Pro-Proposition 8 people here are seemingly oblivious to the actual discussion here - does the act of fundamentally dismantling Equal Protection require only a 50%+1 popular vote, or is it a substantial revision of the constitution itself which is in fact harder to accomplish?
I hope every last one of you guileless morons gets your eyes gnawed on by rats.
Posted by: Anon | May 26, 2009 10:34 PM
A dear friend in grad school dedicated his dissertation to his (gay) brother's (and his partner's) children, AIDS babies born to heterosexuals who did not want them, both of whom were born before my friend began his dissertation and both of whom died before he finished. These were remarkable parents--both the hetero set who gave these flawed children up, and the gay set who were with them every doomed minute.
Yeah, het parents are biologically superior...
Posted by: CarlosT | May 26, 2009 10:35 PM
@ 149: "the California Supreme Court had no real choice in this case"
Again, no, that's not true. Prop 8's proponents followed the correct procedure for a constitutional amendment, but the question was if Prop 8 was a mere amendment or if it was a revision. If it were the latter, then it doesn't matter that Prop 8's supporters followed the correct procedure for an amendment, because the procedure for a revision is different and much tougher, and which was not followed. Justice Moreno's dissent covers the reasoning behind the opinion that it was a revision and therefore invalid. So they had a choice and they made it. Saying their hands were tied is simply incorrect and takes them off the hook for an incorrectly decided opinion.
And yes, they were wrong. Yes, I don't like it, but that's not what I'm basing my conclusion on. I think they're wrong because I think Moreno is right that enshrining a violation of the equal protection principle in the state constitution can in no way be thought of as a "mere amendment". It's clearly a revision and as such should have followed a completely different procedure. Since that procedure was not followed, Prop 8 is invalid and should not become part of the California constitution.
Posted by: crowepps | May 26, 2009 10:53 PM
"does the act of fundamentally dismantling Equal Protection require only a 50%+1 popular vote, or is it a substantial revision of the constitution itself which is in fact harder to accomplish?"
This is precisely the question the California Supreme Court has the authority to answer, and their answer was that it did not tip the bar for 'substantial'. They get the last word unless it's taken to SCOTUS.
Do I personally think that basic civil rights should be abridged by 51% of 39%, included those only informed by a slick ad campaign full of lies financed by tax-exempt cash from an out-of-state reactionary religious organization?
Heck no, I don't think that's right at all. But that does happen to be California law, however idiotic. The solution is not to complain that the court was wrong in its reading of the statutes but instead to accept that the statutes are absurd and change referendums, or else to fund one's own slick ad campaign and have another vote on the exact same issue.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | May 26, 2009 10:56 PM
So get married anyway, change your name if you want, and ignore the bastards who think government is a tool for moral opionating...
This is a great vid on empowering oneself and one's community and bypassing the bastards who want to tell you what you can and can't do...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5455605137215634518
Posted by: genesgalore | May 26, 2009 11:13 PM
109, your eyes are brown
Posted by: Orson Zedd
|
May 26, 2009 11:18 PM
I'll be happy when Mississippi makes atheism legal.
I have a big disagreement about this. Human rights should not be decreed by popular choice. When married couples are given special rights, the gender of the two involved should never factor into it from a legal perspective.
Now sure, Churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. My cousin had to settle for some random preacher, because the one she wanted refused to marry a divorcee. All the same, it's not the preacher that makes them married, it's the little license they get from the courthouse.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 26, 2009 11:26 PM
Walton, five words: European Convention on Human Rights. We'd have to rescind that first, and I doubt that would be so easy.
But yeah, we really really do need a constitution.
Posted by: Ron Hager | May 27, 2009 12:28 AM
I read that the court narrowly interpreted Proposition 8. The narrowness I can discern is the minds of the evil religious bigoted judges that upheld it. Sick bigoted deadly evil imitations of humans is what they are.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 27, 2009 12:36 AM
Prop. 8 has Federal court challenge – but I think
it will get bounced for lack of standing.
Posted by: michael | May 27, 2009 12:55 AM
Somnolent Aphid yeah I meant that I consider it a childs right to be raised by both its biological parents.
Now of course good gay parents are better than bad straight parents BUT losing your relationship with your Biological mother or Father is an irreplacable loss. I know from personal experience that losing a parent even before your birth is an irreplacable loss and I cannot accept that denying your child 1 of its parents from the outset is anything less than child abuse.
Posted by: Zar | May 27, 2009 1:22 AM
michael:
Your concern makes no sense. Gay couples don't run around stealing babies from nurseries. They acquire children the same way an infertile heterosexual does. Hm, you didn't mention any concern about infertile heterosexual couples stealing tearing babies from their birth mothers' breast when they adopt orphans or use artificial insemination or any of that stuff. That seems inconsistent. And it is, because it's not child welfare you care about. You just don't like gays.
You just don't like gays.
You don't like gays because the idea of two men having sex is icky to you. So let's treat them like dirt because the idea of them having sex does not give you an erection (or maybe it does, which makes you even more upset). And because their union makes you and your penis sad, the law should interfere with their happiness. Because you and your penis and your squeamishness are just so very important that laws should be passed preventing legal recognition of relationships that gross you out.
People with icky sex lives get married all the time. Ugly people get married. Old people get married. Fat people get married. BDSM enthusiasts get married. Diaper fetishists get married. And life goes on, because even though these unions are not something many of us would like to look at, it's not any of our business.
So please just keep your daddy issues and your penis out of other peoples' business.
Posted by: raven | May 27, 2009 1:27 AM
Somnolent Aphid yeah I meant that I consider it a childs right to be raised by both its biological parents.
Yes, it is, of course, vitally important for children to be raised by both its biological parents.
Barrack Obama's father left long before he ever knew him. Look what happened to him, a lousy job as senator and President of the USA. Today's paper has another case, judge Sonia Sotomayer. Father died at 9 and the poor woman has had to settle for Princeton law and a Supreme court appointment.
26% of children born in the USA are born to single mothers.
The divorce rate in the USA is 50%.
Has anyone ever told Michael he is really stupid? I mean in the last hour or so.
Incidentally there are one hell of a lot of bad parents out there. Child abuse is way too common. Quite often the kids are far better off without one or more of the original parents.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 27, 2009 2:51 AM
Rescinding the ECHR would first mean leaving the European Union, since ratifying the ECHR is a prerequisite of membership.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 27, 2009 3:00 AM
Michael @ 167:
I've gotta say, man, that's pretty stupid. The implication is that non-biological parents are inherently better for the kid in some way, and I can't see any basis for this in reality.
But from your description, it sounds like you might hold this view because of some personal psychological issues rather than any kind of clear reasoning that supports the idea that biological parents are actually better.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | May 27, 2009 3:14 AM
Ron Hager @ 165:
I read in this post the mind of an utter moron. These are the very same judges who ruled that same-sex marriage was a (pre-Prop 8) constitutional right last year, I hardly think they're "evil religious bigoted judges".
Incidentally, one thing that's been ignored: while it seems to me (and as others have posted above) pretty clear that this is a revision rather than an amendment, since it restricts rights that were previously present in the constitution, the CSC has previously ruled that a considerable number of similar propositions also only required simple majorities. So they all may be wrongly-decided, but it's hard to go against such a heavy weight of precedent.
Posted by: Walton | May 27, 2009 4:53 AM
Though I previously wouldn't have, I agree with you on this point. I recently read Ronald Dworkin's Freedom's Law, which offered a very interesting analysis of this. Dworkin says that the conservative "originalist" judges, who contend that the Constitution should be read "as the framers intended", are just as guilty as any other judge of imposing personal moral convictions on their decisions - because the notion that constitutional rights should be constrained by "what the framers intended" is itself a substantive moral position, not a morally neutral one.
He points out that where a constitutional provision is framed as a broad principle - such as "the equal protection of the laws" - it should be read as what it actually says, not what the framers might have intended it to do. For instance, the framers of the 14th Amendment almost certainly didn't intend it to end school segregation; yet, regardless of what they might have intended, what they actually said was that all citizens must be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws - and, on a natural and literal reading, this made school segregation unconstitutional. (And even the most die-hard originalists no longer call for the overturning of Brown.)
Similarly, then, I would argue today that two provisions - the equal protection clause, and the "full faith and credit" clause - could be read as guaranteeing the recognition of same-sex marriage across the US. Denying citizens, on the grounds of gender, the right to choose their marriage partner constitutes, in a literal sense, a denial of equal protection, since the law is treating people differently on the basis of gender. And since the Constitution requires that all states shall give recognition to the "public acts" of every other state, marriage is a "public act", and some states (notably Massachusetts) perform gay marriages, we can conclude that all states (and the federal government) should be obliged to recognise same-sex marriages solemnised in those states where such marriages are legal. The Framers certainly didn't intend these provisions to provide protection for same-sex marriages; but that's irrelevant. What matters is what they actually said, and what the most natural reading of the provisions is.
Posted by: Walton | May 27, 2009 4:58 AM
(But I realise that what I've said above is irrelevant to the decision in this case, since it concerned state and not federal constitutional law.)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 27, 2009 6:11 AM
My only concern about Gay marriage is that ( given the association of marriage and children ) Gay couples having children and raising them with 2 daddies or 2 mummies means the child loses one of thier biological parents. Now thats a tragedy when its an unforeseen event but PLANNING to deny a child one of its parents just seems wrong.
I believe that ,sadly for the affected couples, being gay is a form of infertility that we can only cure by removing basic rights from the child produced.
All kinds of wrong in this comment, particularly from someone who obviously hasn't looked at any data. But then again, most of the folks who are against equality for queer folks haven't looked at any data.
OK, Mr. Lovejoy, once you've gone out and looked at the literature on gay folks and parenting and their kids, then you can come back and comment about this. Until then, kindly STFU.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 6:16 AM
Alex Dream @164
I'm afraid I have to agree with Walton on this one. The ECHR only has effect in the UK because of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is an Act of Parliament which Parliament can, at any time and with no technical difficulty, repeal. It's true that ratification of the ECHR is a condition of EU membership, but again, the basis of EU membership is a voluntary transfer of Parliament's competency which it is capable of undoing.
Parliament is absolutely sovereign, and can in principle pass any law it chooses. In reality, of course, it's limited by political considerations and the practical matter of enforcement. But Walton's point was concerned with what Parliament could do, legally.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 6:23 AM
Further to #176, and just to demonstrate the point, the transfer of competency referred to RE the EU is another Act of Parliament: The European Communities Act 1972, which is as vunerable to repeal as HRA 98 or any other Act of Parliament.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 27, 2009 7:01 AM
Walton,
"The Framers certainly didn't intend these provisions to provide protection for same-sex marriages; but that's irrelevant. What matters is what they actually said, and what the most natural reading of the provisions is."
I don't think this differs from original intent, or that any credence should be given to the attempt to characterize the conservative position as morally equivilent to the liberal activitist position. Just because strict constructionists look to the founders and authors for the meaning of what is written does not imply activism, but instead respect for the super majority protections in the constitution. The founders envisioned the constitution being applied to new fact patterns, but specifically sought to ensure that its meaning could be changed only by amendment.
You are suprisingly well versed in American law despite being from the UK, and I appreciate your posts. I wonder then, whether the UK has anything to offer the US in terms of controlling some of the virus like elements of stare decisis. There are problematic errosive precedents in the US system, e.g., "efficiency of the courts" was used to limit the right to jury trial to cases where the potential incarceration was more than 6 months. There is no reason this erosive precedent couldn't be used to erode constitutional protections again and again. Why not 9 months or 12 months? Wouldn't the courts be more efficient if trials were eliminated, etc.? Has the UK common or statutory law recognized the problem of erosive precedents and found some way to stop them. I have thought that in areas of the constitution perhaps every step away from the constitution could be required to be balanced by a step back. Perhaps there is someway to rigorously identify precedents with an erosive nature and ban them, or stating that they can only be cited for the reverse of their effect.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 27, 2009 7:10 AM
If we are talking in principle then Parliament is not soverign. The Sovereign is sovereign, and can refuse to sign any act into force, and can disolve Parliament if she so choose.
Posted by: jj | May 27, 2009 7:21 AM
the less married people the better.
marriage is dumb for straight or gay folks.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 7:31 AM
@#179: Well, that's an interesting point. You're quite right that it is the power of the Crown that imbues Acts of Parliament with the force of law. By convention, the Crown always gives Royal Assent to such Acts and the reigning monarch could in theory refuse to do so. It's not clear what would happen in the current circumstances if she did refuse, but it would certainly trigger a constitutional crisis and would probably end the emergence of a new republic.
But you've changed the subject. Whether it's the Crown or Parliament that is sovereign is immaterial; the UK is prevented from enacting any laws it likes neither by the ECHR nor its membership of the EU.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 7:37 AM
Or rather, "end in the emergence of a new republic."
-_-
Posted by: BMcP | May 27, 2009 8:19 AM
It wasn't even about same-sex marriage, it was about wither the people of California had the right to change the constitution in the way that they did (by majority vote). The court felt that California law does at present, allow this and they are legally bound to upload that law. If you look at the 136 page majority ruling, it doesn't even mention same-sex marriage or Proposition 8 itself.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 8:37 AM
@#183: If you look at the 136 page majority ruling, it doesn't even mention same-sex marriage or Proposition 8 itself
And if you look at about 50 of the comments on this page, you'll see that the minority opinion addresses the fact that, actually, California law does not at present allow this unless you want to concede some fairly absurd (or frightening) implications for the rights of groups other than that comprising same-sex couples.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 8:39 AM
@#183: If you look at the 136 page majority ruling, it doesn't even mention same-sex marriage or Proposition 8 itself
And if you look at about 50 of the comments on this page, you'll see that the minority opinion addresses the fact that, actually, California law does not at present allow this unless you want to concede some fairly absurd (or frightening) implications for the rights of groups other than that comprising same-sex couples.
Posted by: Jaketoadie
|
May 27, 2009 10:37 AM
Nice, in one news article I was reading about this I found this little nugget:
"Marriage is about procreation," said Steve Macias, student body president of Sacramento City College. "There is not procreation available in same-sex marriages."
So I immediately thought "so what, anybody who has any number of reproductive deficiencies is also ineligible for marriage?"
Posted by: Flonkbob | May 27, 2009 10:47 AM
Well, as a lifelong (but for a very brief foray in Washington) resident of California I will say for the record that yes, most of us are embarrassed. And ashamed. And angry.
This will change, but it is shameful that California is not on the leading edge of this civil rights issue.
Posted by: Mu | May 27, 2009 10:55 AM
What the ruling really says is that the right to call a domestic partnership "marriage" isn't a fundamental aspect of equality to be a violation (requiring revision) of the equal protection clause. Declaring it a return of "separate but equal" is bs; you can give a domestic partnership all the same legal rights as a marriage without a return to the early-20th century south. No one will introduce separate seating for married and registered couples. It's simply a fighting term for both sides by now, and it's setting the legal rights of gay people back 20 years with the "all or nothing" approach.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 10:57 AM
@Jaketoadie #186: I might start thinking that marriage is about reproduction once wedding ceremonies begin requiring an actual sex act to be performed at peak fertility times.
Until then, it's blatant bullshit, and I doubt the people who say such things really believe it themselves.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 27, 2009 11:08 AM
It's simply a fighting term for both sides by now, and it's setting the legal rights of gay people back 20 years with the "all or nothing" approach.
Really?
Let's compare:
20 years ago: zero states recognize same-sex relationships; two states offer anti-discrimination protections.
Today: Five states do/will allow same-sex couples to marry. Five states (soon to be six, with Illinois), offer nearly equivalent DP/CU systems; three states offer lesser relationship recognition/protection. One state and DC will recognize same-sex relationships contracted elsewhere. Seven states (through legislation or executive action) bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 13 states and DC also include discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Yup, we're moving backward.
Posted by: DebinOz | May 27, 2009 11:47 AM
What a disgrace!
I am a heterosexual mother, and I have never been prouder of my two daughters when they were bridesmaids at a same-sex ceremony in SF in 1996. My children were 3 and 6 at the time.
What is the fuckin' problem? I honestly do not get it. Really, can someone explain to me why a same-sex couple cannot be recognised the same, legally and morally as a different-sex couple?
I don't want to hear any 'libertarian' argument because they bore me to tears, and I don't want to hear any religious justifiction because, well, you suck!!!!
Posted by: Angel Kaida | May 27, 2009 12:46 PM
Er, DebinOz, not to L-word-troll, but I'm pretty sure they're typically in favor of gay rights. But I may be wrong.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 27, 2009 3:04 PM
Well the Human Rights Act achieved two things:
1. Outlawed the death penalty
2. Provided the ability for UK citizens to challenge a restriction of their rights as outlined in the ECHR in UK courts rather than go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
So technically it's had effect in the UK for about 50 years since it was first signed, just you couldn't do anything about it in UK courts until the HRA.
I wasn't saying that Parliament couldn't repeal any legislation to do with the HRA, ECHR or the ECA. Of course Parliament can repeal anything it choses, that's why we need an entrenched constitution. My point was that it wouldn't be as simple as Walton was making out for Parliament to just make torture legal or whatever. There would be a hell of a lot of stuff to get rid of first.
I was going to make the same point as Matt, but anyway, I think his point is relevant here. We were discussing what Parliament can "in principle" do, and it makes no sense to discuss what it can do in principle if we don't recognize that the Crown can do a lot of things too, "in principle".
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 3:06 PM
To the extent that any of them are in favor of gay rights -- and many are not, the result of embarrassed conservatives hoping they could sound cool by calling themselves libertarians without changing their politics -- they are even more in favor of letting individual states take away gay rights.
American libertarianism is most often a cantankerous hark back to a mythical tale of federalism that was idiosyncratic before 1865 and insufferable since, only rarely and then accidentally a commitment to personal freedom.
Yes, there are exceptions. I'm pleased to see our resident law student now giving arguments for federal marriage equality that he would have dismissed only a few months ago.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 3:10 PM
That reminds me, Walton, I wanted to share this with you:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/and_if_it_werent_for_hamilton_john_roberts_would_be_making_1500_a_year_as_c/
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 3:26 PM
Alex Deam, it's not exclusively a Roman history by any means, but this has come recommended to me:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0w9bA4PeOQC
Posted by: Ben | May 27, 2009 3:28 PM
> No. The Federal constitution would prohibit [slavery].
Read it again. The 13th amendment does NOT prohibit slavery. It merely reserves the right to enslave to the state.
The process is:
1) Convict you of violating a law;
2) You are now eligible for slavery and/or indenture.
Very simple. Also very easy, since the legal system has turned into an overcomplicated, poorly reasoned, rarely constitutional nightmare.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 3:32 PM
Just like joining the armed forces, adults should have the right to make their own mistakes.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 3:41 PM
State courts ought to be diligent about at least informing their legislatures when state law is potentially in conflict with the federal Constitution. Failure to do so is only likely to cost the state more in legal fees.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Hey thanks for providing that. I've added that book to a list of bookmarks I have of books I might want to get at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, I don't have a similar recommendation for you, as my non-science and philosophy book knowledge is deficient.
Posted by: Steve Dutch | May 27, 2009 7:09 PM
I would hope a scientist would show a little more analytical precision. Gay marriage is not "banned" in California, nor anywhere else (now that obsolete statutes on sodomy are moot). Gay people can hire a clergy person, rent a hall, get a tux or a gown, or do it in the nude for that matter, buy a cake, send out invitations and host a reception. Nowhere in the USA is that illegal. What you can't do in California is insist on having the state accept that partnership under the heading of "marriage." You can draft a will (something you need to do anyway) and give your partner power of attorney and for less than many hetero couples spend on a gown, you can give your partner the same legal rights as a spouse. So what specific right is being violated here?
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 27, 2009 7:28 PM
I would hope a Christian like yourself would show a little more compassion. No such luck.
Then the clergy of anti-gay churches are being given special state powers, to perform civil marriages among their congregants. These powers are denied to the clergy of churches like the Metropolitan Community Church. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If you weren't a bigot, you might have bothered to educate yourself on the matter, instead of taking your pastor's word for everything.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well."
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 27, 2009 11:19 PM
strange gods before me, good work with the debunking at #202.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 1:26 AM
Nobody can marry a member of the same-sex in CA, but everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality. Words signal a concept or idea. If the word marriage will be redefined, it be by reason of the use society makes of it. We don't need arbitrary definitions legislated under the pretense of equality.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 1:29 AM
@193
Sure, I'll concede that the ECHR had effect in the UK before the HRA - there was certainly an obligation under international convention to construe domestic policy and legislation as compatible with its provisions. But even that obligation was not explicit, and Parliament - with taken-for-granted Royal Assent - was never irrevocably bound by it.
I think the rest of your post makes distinctions without differences. Walton said: "Our system is based on the supremacy of Parliament; so if Parliament were to decide to enact a law legalising torture, say, or banning ethnic minorities from participating in government, then there would be nothing the courts could do about it."
This is, in effect, true. Royal Assent would either be given or constitutional changes would be made to render such assent unnecessary to enact law. It's incidentally true that Parliament would have to repeal a bunch of other legislation to do these things, but it can do that - again, with or, no doubt, without Royal Assent.
And even if you wanted to argue the principle that Royal Assent is necessary to enact law and there's no basis for claiming that Parliament would ever be able to do so without it, then Walton's statement could be trivially altered to be compatible with that position: "Our system is based on the supremacy of Parliament acting with Royal Assent; so if Parliament with that assent were to decide...".
Posted by: Rick R | May 28, 2009 3:12 AM
"We don't need arbitrary definitions legislated under the pretense of equality."
How true. I mean, 200 years ago, "free citizen" meant white male land owners.
Along come those pesky equality advocates, advocating for all sorts of changes in word definitions.
The dictionary's never been the same sense.
HG, I'll bet you're a mormon. You have that stink about you.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 4:06 AM
HG @#204:
Stop thinking of it as a matter of discrimination against sexual orientation (for which there is a valid case), and start thinking about it as a matter of gender discrimination (which is much more logically straightforward).
A (gay or straight) man can marry a (gay or straight) woman under California law, that's fair enough. But can a (gay or straight) man marry another (gay or straight) man? The only difference in these two scenarios is gender. The man in the second example is prevented by the law from marrying someone else on the basis of their gender. There is blatant inequality here.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:48 AM
@#207
The fact that marriage doesn't allow for anyone regardless of gender to marry a party of the same gender is not discrimination. Many areas of society are similarly restrictive. There is not inequality when the conditions apply equally to all.
As far as homosexual unions go, they have the legal equivalent in domestic partnerships.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:49 AM
"HG, I'll bet you're a mormon."
Not in the least.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 4:57 AM
Many areas of society are similarly restrictive.
oh?
shall we explore constitutional issues of this nature then?
you first. name one other issue where gender bias is written into the constitution.
or were you trying to disingenuously conflate "society" with our system of laws?
they have the legal equivalent in domestic partnerships.
wrong again. You're quite ignorant, do you know that?
...oh, wait.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 5:05 AM
Marriage isn't mentioned in the US constitution.
In CA domestic partnerships are the legaal equivalent. Look it up.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 28, 2009 5:25 AM
Is HG pretending not to know about federal marriage rights, which "domestic partnerships" don't get? Okay then.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 28, 2009 8:05 AM
HG, We're not talking about the simple definition of marriage that you seem to be arguing, that marriage is a mere coupling. There are already legal (hence legislated) definitions attached to the word "marriage" and equality is not part of them, yet. As strange brew points out in #202, there are over 1,400 rights and privileges for married couples that are denied intergendered couples. The point is that long term, committed couples, who happen not to be "married" are denied things like hospital visitation rights (which is what did it for me). And so there is blatant inequality in this system. It is a legislated system, and we need to work on getting equality into that system.
Even if CA had a equality bill many of those rights could still be denied a couple based on the federal 1996 DOMA, which ultimately needs to be overturned. We need to work on that at some point as well.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 8:14 AM
thriftybat,
Nice try but HG, like most anti-gay people, isn't interested in thinking.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 11:07 AM
"The point is that long term, committed couples, who happen not to be "married" are denied things like hospital visitation rights (which is what did it for me)."
Willful ignorance of domestic partnerships laws in CA is no excuse for denying that they exist.
You just keep hanging on to that equality nonsense. The vast majority know what a marriage is. Marriage existed prior to our nation. Government acknowledges marriage and this formal acknowledgement is legally defined because that is what marriage has always been. It discriminates against none because it is equally applied to all.
I addreessed the equality farce and the definition. As far as the definition is concerned, words communicate ideas. The majority of society and sociteties throughout history have and continue to hold the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Advocates of changing marriage wish to legislate the way most of society thinks about marriage by redefining it to accomodate the questionable behavior of less than 2% of society. The majority will not allow our language and our thoughts to become the product of government legislation in regards to marriage. And rightfully so given the social, historical, traditional, and religious significance of marrige to so many people.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 11:18 AM
Of course it's discrimination. The state is limiting the ability of men to make the same decision that is available to women: to marry men. It's true that everyone has the option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, but that is only part of the choice in question. The "right" to marry has been constrained by the state on the basis of gender. That is gender discrimination.
Perhaps if there was a legitimate public interest, this discrimination could be justified. Perhaps if there was some harm or mischief being prevented, it would make sense for the state to impose restrictions on the choice of women to marry other women. But to claim that there is no inequality based on sex here is absurd. Such an inequality clearly exists, and there is no good reason for it.
Ichthyic already pointed out your fallacy in conflating legal and societal restrictions.
Incidentally, I always wondered, what's the status of hermaphrodites under this "between a man and a woman" business? Are such people assigned a particular gender at birth, and then constrained by that designation in terms these laws? Do they get to choose whether they wish to be counted as the "man" or the "woman" when getting married, and hence can marry a member of either sex? Or perhaps, as neither unambiguously man nor woman, they are not allowed to marry at all? Forget the legal position for a minute: what does the Bible have to say about these people? Or what are your thoughts, HG?
MAJeff: What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment. And the rest...
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 11:25 AM
The vast majority know what a marriage is.
[citation needed]
because that is what marriage has always been.
[citation needed]
Advocates of changing marriage wish to legislate the way most of society thinks about marriage by redefining it to accomodate the questionable behavior of less than 2% of society.
[citation needed]
Oh, look, a diatribe whose substantive claims lack any sort of empirical support. I don't suppose we should be greatly surprised.
Posted by: a lurker | May 28, 2009 11:29 AM
While this is a short-term (now until November 2010) setback, it is very potentially a long-term victory. The court, which clearly approves of same-sex marriage, had no real choice: rule of law supersedes their preferences. But they did it in a way which will long-term will help the advance of same-sex marriage.
First of all, the court demonstrated that contrary to the claims they simple make up stuff to get the results they desired that they really are following their understanding what what the law actually says. That a primary talking point of enemy has been destroyed is something that can't be taken lightly.
Second, a repeal of prop 8 will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot. The odds are fairly good that this time the homophobes will be defeated. A vote of the people of the largest state of the union supporting same-sex marriage will be a stepping stone whose importance cannot be overestimated. It will destroy the argument that the people are against it. It will also give a form of legitimacy that will be hard to deny. And in the end, no right is safe for long until it prevail in elections.
Third, after prop 8 is repealed the legislature can go in and put it into statutory law if whoever is governor will sign it -- and it is likely that will indeed be the case.
After that California will have laws on the book allowing same-sex marriage, a vote of the people which overturned a ban, a state supreme court decision saying that a ban is unconstitutional,* and decision saying that any marriage performed when it was legal does not go away when a ban is put in place. That will be an extremely powerful combination that will make it extremely clear that same-sex marriage is complete legitimate in California. After that the opponents will not be able to do much more than scream.
And then California will be an important stepping stone for the rest of the country.
*Recall that if prop 8 is repealed, the court's finding that such a ban is unconstitutional will be back in full force: basically the California Constitution without prop 8 does not allow for such a ban on the basis of several non-discrimination provisions of the California Constitution.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 11:31 AM
because that is what marriage has always been.
I want a Femme Couverte and her property!!!
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 28, 2009 11:45 AM
I see your point, and it's a good one.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 11:47 AM
"Oh, look, a diatribe whose substantive claims lack any sort of empirical support."
You need empirical support for those three? Have you ever stepped away from your computer?
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 11:57 AM
"The state is limiting the ability of men to make the same decision that is available to women:"
Nope. Women cannot partner with the same sex in marriage either.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 12:07 PM
HG, at this site you almost always need empirical evidence to back up inane arguments. So put up or shut up. Welcome to science.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 12:33 PM
"Welcome to science."
I don't think I'll let you speak for all of science just because you spend most of your time on this blog. I don't think most scientists demand empirical proof of the obvious when discussing a social institution like marriage. But hey, if you want to deny that marriage has always been defined as a civil and religious contract between an man and a woman, that less than 2% of society would benefit from changing marriage, or that the majority want marriage left alone, simply on the grounds that I haven't linked you to that reality, shows how disconnected you are from it. Deny away.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 12:37 PM
But hey, if you want to deny that marriage has always been defined as a civil and religious contract between an man and a woman
GET THE TO AN ANTHROPOLOGY CLASS! (or history or sociology)
Or, read Stephanie Coontz's "The Social Origins of Private Life" or "Marriage: A History"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 12:48 PM
HG, we think you are flatulating. Therefore, back up yourself with citations.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 28, 2009 12:59 PM
... of the obvious when discussing a social institution like marriage.
Nothing obvious is ever all that obvious. Except perhaps when used in arguments for the existence of fill-in-the-blank. It should be obvious. But it rarely is.
No two marriages are alike. The institution of marriage is big and amorphous. Show me some obvious please.
I do plan on picking up stepanie coontz this weekend. thanks MAJeff
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 1:12 PM
This scientist would certainly like to see assertive statements, like those in #224, backed up. But then again I'm probably the wrong one to ask, since I'd also like to know how you're defining "always."
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 1:46 PM
"You need empirical support for those three? Have you ever stepped away from your computer?"
I think I see the problem here. Could it be that HG blindly accepts as true the things that he / she is told, or simply has a gut feeling about? Perhaps this is not the only subject which HG doesn't believe requires the support of empirical evidence.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 2:59 PM
"Approximately 2.3% of men consider themselves homosexual and 1.8% identify as bisexual. Among women, 1.3% consider themselves homosexual and 2.8% bisexual."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1497778
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 28, 2009 3:20 PM
Arbitrary definitions? You must not be aware that marriage wasn't originally between one man and one woman. Besides, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy. No-one cares what the definition of marriage being used in society is. What people care about is whether that definition is the "right" one (right as in morally right). If you think that marriage should just be between one man and one woman, then you're a homophobic cunt, and you can fuck off.
Bullshit. Will you please read post #202 already?
Is this an argument against same sex marriage because there aren't that many homosexual or bisexual people in the US?
Does this mean we get to annul Barack Obama's marriage to Michelle because multiracial people only make up 2% of the US population?
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:24 PM
Majority of Americans not only define marriage as a civil and religious union between a man and a woman, but oppose gay marriages.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:29 PM
"What people care about is whether that definition is the "right" one (right as in morally right). "
Oh, so now you favor legislating morality whenever it fits your political agenda.
"Is this an argument against same sex marriage because there aren't that many homosexual or bisexual people in the US?"
It is the "empirical evidence" science requires in order to accept what everybody already knows.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 3:31 PM
*reads #230*
And seems like there is definitely the potential for this to affect more than "less than 2%" of us.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:34 PM
Josh,
How so? 1.8% plus 2.3% / 2 = 2.05%. Do you suppose every homosexual will marry? That is not the nature of homosexuality.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 3:35 PM
C'mon HG, just admit it. You want special rights because you're straight.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 3:37 PM
That is not the nature of homosexuality.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:39 PM
Special rigts because I'm straight?
What special rights? I can marry the opposite sex and I can't marry the same sex. We all have the same rights.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 3:40 PM
And what does what the majority of people want have to do with what is right and non-prejudicial? Ad Populum arguments are irrelevant.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 3:40 PM
No, I was thinking the other way. I was sort of figuring that the marriage issue might "bleed into" the self-identified bisexual group.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 3:44 PM
What special rights? I can marry the opposite sex and I can't marry the same sex. We all have the same rights.
And the homeless and wealthy man are equally barred from sleeping in the park.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:44 PM
"Does this mean we get to annul Barack Obama's marriage to Michelle..."
Our President agrees marriage is between a man and woman.
Posted by: amphiox | May 28, 2009 3:45 PM
#238: You can marry a person of the gender you are sexually attracted to. A homosexual person in California now cannot.
'Equal' does not mean 'same'.
Insisting on treating diverse individuals exactly the same is in fact a great injustice, and a major source of inequality.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 3:49 PM
marriage as a civil and religious union
ignorant, bigoted godbot.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 3:54 PM
"You can marry a person of the gender you are sexually attracted to. A homosexual person in California now cannot"
Because same sex unions are not marriage. In CA a they are domestic partnerships. I cannot enter into a domestic partnership in CA with the opposite sex.
Eligibility:
5.Either of the following:
>Both persons are members of the same sex.
>The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
According to you that is both age and gender discrimination.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 3:54 PM
And okay, so let's say 2% for easy figuring. So what? So if only 2% of our team is effected by something, then we can safely oppress them?
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2009 3:57 PM
What a disingenous load of crap. "only 2% would benefit"? You conveniently imply by that that no one currently benefits from marriage, however it is defined. What is true is that 2% more would benefit by including gay couples. Letting marriage include gay couples in no way imposes any detriment to heterosexual couples. You know, back in the 60's letting blacks vote only benefited a minority of the people also. Bigot.
[2% is used to be consistent with your usage; whatever the percentage is, the point still stands]
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 3:58 PM
I guess next you'll tell us about the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:00 PM
Because same sex unions are not marriage.
In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa (soon Vermont, Maine), Canada, Norway, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, and South Africa they are.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:01 PM
"So if only 2% of our team is effected by something, then we can safely oppress them?"
No. Not allow them to oppress society with their demands under the pretense of equality. Leaving marriage what it is does not oppress anyone. Your premise is unproven.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 4:02 PM
HG #224 wrote:
The "religious contract" part is irrelevant, because we're dealing with a matter of civil law, and equal protection under the law. So take religion out of it.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people: in order to restrict it only to people of different sexes, you need an argument which doesn't simply rely on tradition, popularity, religion, or how many people would be harmed. Those same arguments were used by government to try to restrict marriage to people of the same race, and none of them mattered when faced against the rights of the people to form enforceable contracts.
The burden of proof here is on the government, to show why marriage ought to be limited to opposite sexes. If the government can't make an argument for discriminating against gay couples which could not also be used to discriminate against mixed-race couples, then the government has failed to meet its burden.
You've got the burden of proof backwards.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 4:02 PM
But okay. I'm fine with the 2%. How about that definition of "always?"
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:03 PM
No. Not allow them to oppress society with their demands under the pretense of equality. Leaving marriage what it is does not oppress anyone. Your premise is unproven.
Tremble, Hetero Swine! You are our slaves!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 4:03 PM
So why do you have the right by law to be married?
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:05 PM
"So take religion out of it."
Don't have to. The state didn't take religion out of it when they recognized marriage for what it is and how it is practiced. The state simply formalized the agreement.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 4:07 PM
This guy is on some serious halucinogens.OK, tell me how two homosexuals getting married oppresses the Redhead and I, who have been married for 30+ years.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:08 PM
Don't have to. The state didn't take religion out of it when they recognized marriage for what it is and how it is practiced. The state simply formalized the agreement.
Wow. So much ignorance of the history of marriage regulation.
Then again, HG's issue isn't marriage, it's the goddamned queers.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
I have three things to say about your post at #230, HG:
1) I can't seem to find the methodology for the source of those statistics, but measuring sexual orientation (or, in this case, sexual behaviour) is notoriously difficult and it is acknowledged most surveys understate the incidence of homosexual and bisexual orientations. This is due, among other things, to the social stigmatisation of homosexuality and the challenge of properly defining what we mean by "homosexual." So I would take those numbers with a pinch of salt.
2) The numbers quoted in your cite claim that around 4% of the population would be affected by the ability to marry one's own sex. That makes your figure in post #s 215 and 224 100% wrong. And even if 2% were right, that's around 6 million people in the US. Is it OK that equality under the law affects 6 million people just because it's only 2%?
3) It isn't even the incidence of homosexuality figure that I was saying required a cite. It was your claim that the motivation for advocates of same sex marriage is the "questionable behavior of [gay people]". That doesn't even follow. If it was really about gay sex (which I presume you mean by "questionable behavior"), surely their target would be laws that prevented people from having gay sex, which battle has already been won. I want to know where you get your information about people supporting same sex marriages because of "questionable behavior".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 4:11 PM
HG
Ted Olsen, conservative lawyer disagrees with your ignorant assessment and agrees with us.
Yes, that Ted Olsen, former solicitor general under GW Bush.
He's no authority on anything, but he sure holds some experience and knowledge.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 4:12 PM
Neither does letting these people marry who they wish.
Your premise is foolish.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 4:15 PM
HG #255 wrote:
Marriage is primarily a civil contract between two people. Some marriages also have religious import -- but that is not necessary, and it is not what makes it legal.
It seems to me that claiming that marriage is basically a religious agreement which the State later 'formalized' is not only ahistorical, but sets up several new problems for you.
One, it has the government intruding into religion. Imagine if the State formalized baptisms, confirmations, and holy communions into civil law, deciding which churches were worthy of such formalization.
And two, it would mean that people who were not religious, would have no reason (or maybe even no right) to marry. But that's clearly not the case at all, so your argument fails.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:21 PM
"I want to know where you get your information about people supporting same sex marriages because of "questionable behavior"."
It is a generalization based on society's and nature's reactions to homosexuality.
Society finds homosexuality, well, laughable. It is a mockery to most. We have entire sitcoms built on this premise. Hell homosexuals laugh at themselves and have boasted of the humor homosexuality provides society.
When confronted with it, most people are repulsed by homosexuality. There is something disturbing about a guy or girl trying to act, look, and sound like a member of the opposite sex for sexual gratification.
The CDC numbers tell us human biology is not fit for homosexuality. Tne extremely disproportionate numbers of STD's and other health issues common to homosexual behavior is undeniable.
When I said "questionable" I was allowing for the benefit of the doubt among those not familiar with these facts.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:28 PM
"Marriage is primarily a civil contract between two people. Some marriages also have religious import -- but that is not necessary, and it is not what makes it legal."
Never suggested it was. I simply pointed out that religion was not removed from marriage. The state recognizes marriages both religious and civil.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 4:31 PM
Meh, inequality under the law* -_-
Furthermore, you're also claiming that only the people who are married benefit from marriage. Wasn't there a Keith Olberman rant recently about the economical benefits of marriage? Not to mention the stability it provides for the children of gay couples. And so on.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Thriftybat,
None of that matters. Gotta keep the faggots out. That's all that matters, and it matters for its own sake.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:36 PM
"Yes, that Ted Olsen, former solicitor general under GW Bush.
He's no authority on anything, but he sure holds some experience and knowledge."
You got Olsen, I got President Obama. Good people disagree.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 4:37 PM
OK, so no empirical evidence, just as I thought. Also:
"There is something disturbing about a guy or girl trying to act, look, and sound like a member of the opposite sex for sexual gratification."
Err, I'm not sure you're familiar with most common definitions of homosexuality. Hint: it has nothing to do with trying to act, look or sound like a member of the opposite sex for sexual gratification.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 4:40 PM
HG #263 wrote:
Actually, the state only recognizes a religious marriage if the participants also go through the civil process, so, when we deal with the legal definition of marriage, we cannot bring in religious arguments. They belong in churches.
The government has a heavy burden to meet, to explain why it restricts the benefits and duties of marriage to different-sex couples. I don't think the State can make its case, and your arguments so far are not helping government to make its case. The starting assumption is for the rights of the individual.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:43 PM
"you're also claiming that only the people who are married benefit from marriage."
Right. And only people who have domestic partnerships benefit from them. So what?
Kieth Olbermann?
Posted by: Bill Benson | May 28, 2009 4:45 PM
I read the opinion and I believe the Court has allowed the definition of "marriage" to be narrowly construed as a "label" for opposite sex marriage. It however reaffirmed that the equal protection sections of the California constitution still applie and therefore same sex marriages are protected accordingly and will continue to have all of the right and privileges (except for the right to the label "marriage") as do opposite sex marriages. It is really a Pyrrhic victory of sorts for the supporters of Prop 8.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 4:47 PM
HG, still haven't shown anything as to why the marriage of the Redhead and I is diminished by her gay cousin marrying his partner. Neither the Redhead nor I feel in any way diminished. You appear to have some problems with gays. A little latency on your part perhaps...
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:48 PM
"Hint: it has nothing to do with trying to act, look or sound like a member of the opposite sex for sexual gratification."
Really? Have ever seen pics of gay pride parades?
Posted by: Bill Benson | May 28, 2009 4:48 PM
I read the opinion and I believe the Court has allowed the definition of "marriage" to be narrowly construed as a "label" for opposite sex marriage. It however reaffirmed that the equal protection in the California constitution still applies and therefore same sex marriages are protected accordingly and will continue to have all of the right and privileges (except for the right to the label "marriage") as do opposite sex marriages. It is really a Pyrrhic victory of sorts for the supporters of Prop 8.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:50 PM
Have ever seen pics of gay pride parades?
Yeah, all the church groups get a little tedious.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 28, 2009 4:51 PM
HG,
Are you Christian? Muslim? Atheist? What?
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 4:52 PM
Yeah, I have, but I'm also aware enough to know that pictures of gay pride parades aren't representative of homosexuality. It's pretty clear that your ignorance extends to many areas, and I'm bored of exploring it. So have fun with that.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:54 PM
"I don't think the State can make its case, and your arguments so far are not helping government to make its case. The starting assumption is for the rights of the individual."
My argument is the opinion of the majority in my state and the law. It is your burden to convince us your opinion is correct. Clearly you are the ones failing to do so in CA.
My attempt here may or may not convince you of anything. If nothing else it's been a good excercise. The more we discuss these issues the more informed our opinions and decisions will be.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Oh, how fun:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/05/anti-gay-journo-dragged-kicking-and.html
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 28, 2009 4:57 PM
No, only you find homosexuality laughable.
Stop trolling and go wank your bigoted wet dreams somewhere else, you sick, twisted, homophobic little fuck.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 4:59 PM
"pictures of gay pride parades aren't representative of homosexuality."
Then what the hell do they represent?
They don't call the "gay" for nothing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 5:00 PM
Then what the hell do they represent?
what does the Macy's thanksgiving day parade represent?
I think it represents that you're a moron.
Hey, at least it makes as much sense as what you're saying.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 5:03 PM
"No, only you find homosexuality laughable."
Dude, you don't watch "Will and Grace"?
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 28, 2009 5:04 PM
Gay pride parades aren't all gay people, moron. There are plenty of gay people who are nothing like the people who attend those parades. Gay people are as diverse as heterosexual people.
Again, fuck off troll.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 5:06 PM
Definitely some unnecessary hostility here. Anybody elses gaydar going off a little?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 5:09 PM
It's funny, the chatter about Pride parades. Sure, you get some of the more "nonmainstream" aspects of queer community, the queens and leatherfolk and dykes on bikes. You also see tons of church groups, parents groups, PFLAG, student groups, employee groups, gay and lesbian choirs and bands, political candidates, businesses, etc.
In other words, HG is an anti-gay troll. Nothing more.
(And some of the rest of y'all need to get to the nearest Pride parade)
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 5:10 PM
"Again, fuck off troll."
"you sick, twisted, homophobic little fuck."
"Definitely some unnecessary hostility here. Anybody elses gaydar going off a little?"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 5:15 PM
You really are an idiot.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 28, 2009 5:17 PM
HG,
Are you Christian? Muslim? Atheist? What?
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 5:20 PM
Why can't I leave this alone?
That Will and Grace canard you keep on vomiting up: there is a popular sitcom that features gay people, therefore the majority of the population mocks and ridicules homosexuality.
It follows, then, that there is a popular sitcom that is about friends, therefore the majority of the population mocks and ridicules friendship.
Really?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 5:20 PM
Dude, you don't watch "Will and Grace"?
well, that explains your level of knowledge then.
You get all your information about homosexuality from sitcoms.
what a wanker.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 28, 2009 5:42 PM
The keyword there is "unnecessary" hostility. My hostility towards you is absolutely necessary, and in fact it should be encouraged. You hostility though, is unnecessary, because you're homophobic scum.
Btw, fucked up pond life such as yourself shouldn't parrot other people's words.
Once again I ask you you to go troll somewhere else. Somewhere your sickness would be more welcoming. Stormfront maybe?
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 5:44 PM
HG #277 wrote:
It is not 'my burden' to persuade the state of California. At the moment, I'm eating a baked potato and trying to understand your reasoning here.
We're discussing whether or not the government has a case for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. You think the government does have a case for discrimination -- based on what?
Saying "the majority agrees with me" is ducking the question. The majority, at one point, felt that government should not sanction marriage between people of different races. But the arguments against inter-racial marriage -- which are very similar to the arguments against gay marriage -- did not stand up under the Constitution. The government lost to individual rights.
So, if you're going to support the power of the State against the rights of the individual -- you better have a better case.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 6:05 PM
"That Will and Grace canard you keep on vomiting up: there is a popular sitcom that features gay people, therefore the majority of the population mocks and ridicules homosexuality."
That is a sad excuse for reason. It's an example, nothing more. There are others, Reno 911 for instance. LT Dangler ring any bells? I'm laughing as I type this.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 6:08 PM
It's an example, nothing more.
an example, you used.
"Then what the hell
do theydoes it represent?"sound familiar, fucktard?
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 6:10 PM
Homosexuality and Humor.
"Homosexuality occupies a special place
within the domain of sexual humor, both
because of the intense taboo with which
the very mention of it was once invested,
but also because of the perceived incongruity
of erotic attraction between two
members of the same sex~its departure
from the cultural expectation of heterosexuality.
The individual who departs too
markedly from the gender role norms of
the culture is bound to be a target of
disapproval, expressed at least in the form
of humor."
Not sure who the author is.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 6:13 PM
All about hating on the queers. Nothing more.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 6:13 PM
Nature's reactions to homosexuality? Are you kidding me? You're not really going to try and play that card with us, are you?
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 28, 2009 6:14 PM
No, I'm obviously nowhere near as well-versed as you are in the portrayal of homosexuality in popular American culture. But I don't need to be to realise that just because something appears in the media - even in a humorous context - that does not mean that people are repelled by it and feel the need to deride it. Is it possible that people find things funny for reasons other than hostile ones? Is the target of any comedic theme automatically something that people wish to excise from society? Is that really the most likely explanation to explain the content of the shows you mentioned?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 6:18 PM
Gee, nature and god like homosexuals. (S)He makes so many of them in all sorts of species...
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 6:21 PM
Thrifty,
It demonstrates the way people think about homosexuality, nothing more. It doesn't mean it should be removed from society. It just means that its abnormal enough to be considered funny.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 6:23 PM
It just means that its abnormal enough to be considered funny.
Kind of like nuclear family life: Roseanne, Everybody Loves Raymond....
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 6:24 PM
Hey, guys, lighten up on HG. He hasn't once mentioned his gay friends. He hasn't cited a single Biblical verse condemning homosexuality. He hasn't expressed any disgust about anal sex. How can you claim he's homophobic? Okay, he thinks that gays should be discriminated against and that it's a burden on the majority to allow same-sex marriage. But he's just trying to keep society moral and that sort of shit. It's not homophobic for the damn queers to go back into the closet and not expose their sickening immorality on the rest of us godly people.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 6:28 PM
Hey, guys, lighten up on HG. He hasn't once mentioned his gay friends. He hasn't cited a single Biblical verse condemning homosexuality. He hasn't expressed any disgust about anal sex. How can you claim he's homophobic? Okay, he thinks that gays should be discriminated against and that it's a burden on the majority to allow same-sex marriage. But he's just trying to keep society moral and that sort of shit. It's not homophobic for the damn queers to go back into the closet and not expose their sickening immorality on the rest of us godly people.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 6:28 PM
Kind of like dysfuntional family life. Yeah.
Here, laugh a little.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbUurXo2hA
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Huh? Is HG's argument here that the government should exercise its power to restrict gay marriage -- because it has a duty to protect the majority from being offended or bothered by what the minority does? To not have to contemplate things they consider "icky?"
HG, Do you really want to grant the State that kind of power? Even if you're not bothered by the principles or ethics, imagine the sorts of things which the majority might one day find "icky."
When gay marriage is finally passed across the country, there will still be churches, organizations, and individuals speaking out against it, calling it "sinful" and "gross." And the majority of people will consider such speech "icky" -- and they may ask the government to step in and restrict it.
But the government cannot do that: We The People did not give it the power, or saddle it with the duty, of protecting the majority being offended or bothered by the minority, going about its business, doing things that are "icky." The famous line from A Man For All Seasons might apply here, regarding tearing down the laws -- in this case, the law of individual rights -- to get at the icky ol' devil.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 6:33 PM
Sorry about the double post. SB has gone completely wonky for me. I can't sign in on TypeKey, I get timed out on reloads, and the whole site is user-hostile.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 6:33 PM
Sastra,
I think you're overcomplicating it. The point is to keep the queers out. It needs no justification; it justifies itself.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 6:37 PM
Sastra,
I'll restate my arguement for you.
Nobody can marry a member of the same-sex in CA, but everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality. Words signal a concept or idea. If the word marriage will be redefined, it be by reason of the use society makes of it. We don't need arbitrary definitions legislated under the pretense of equality.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 6:40 PM
MA Jeff OM wrote:
But HG has framed his argument from the standpoint of protecting 'the people' from the interfering power of government -- something he also presumably feels strongly about. But on same sex marriage, it's really the other way around.
I'm curious to see what's more important to him: "keeping the queers out" -- or restricting the State from needlessly intervening against the rights of the individual.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 6:40 PM
Shorter HG: Fuck the queers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 6:41 PM
Nobody can marry a member of the same-sex in CA, but everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality.
this is still the most ass-backward statement I've seen in this thread.
...and you're still a complete fucktard.
Posted by: James F | May 28, 2009 6:54 PM
Lewis Black weighs in.
"And another American family...is destroyed!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 6:56 PM
HG never explained how the Redhead and I are hurt by gay marriage. What a tool.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 28, 2009 6:58 PM
Nobody can
marry a member of the same-sexraise their children Jewish in CA, but everyone canmarry a member of the opposite sexraise their children Christian. There is no inequality. Words signal a concept or idea...We don't need arbitrary definitions legislated under the pretense of equality. [like "person" or "citizen"...]Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 7:09 PM
"I'm curious to see what's more important to him: "keeping the queers out" -- or restricting the State from needlessly intervening against the rights of the individual."
Kind of a false dilemma. Homosexuals are not out so the state doesn't need to intervene. Every individual has the right to marry. What you all are advocating is that everyone should also be given another right, the right to marry the same sex. That would still leave out other questioinable behaviors like polygamy and incest. Wouldn't those who practice these be dicriminated against without the ability to marry whoever they want? These don't even have access to domestic partnerships. Why do we have special unions for homosexuals, but not for these?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 7:20 PM
What you all are advocating is that everyone should also be given another right, the right to marry the same sex.
to reuse the apt analogy above:
"What you all are advocating is that everyone should also be given another right, the right to marry a different race."
you just don't get it, do ya?
Posted by: Iris | May 28, 2009 7:21 PM
HG
First, this is not about "special unions" for homosexuals. It's about the same unions for homosexuals that heterosexuals have. That is the entire point, and I don't understand how you could miss it.
Second, are you really that uninformed that you do not know the impact polygamy and incest have in actual practice? You do know you can actually look this stuff up, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 7:22 PM
That would still leave out other questioinable behaviors like polygamy and incest.
...and bestiality, etc., etc.
btw, those were the EXACT same argument used by racists to argue against interracial marriage.
congratulations, you've regressed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 7:29 PM
I'd still like HG to demonstrate two things
1. what he thinks will happen if "teh gays" are allowed the same rights as heterosexuals
2. where he finds his right to get married
But I don't really care too much because he doesn't need to tell us anything more. He's demonstrated that his argument is not build on reason it's only built on his incredible fear and hate of the queers.
Posted by: HG | May 28, 2009 7:30 PM
Iris,
I'm well aware that homosexuals want access to marriage.
I'm aware of the impact of polygamy and incest. I don't want marriage to be changed to allow for incestuous marriage or polygamy. In the same way I don't want to allow marriage to be changed to allow homosexuals to marry. Are you aware of the impact of homosexuality in practice? Homosexuality is not real compatible with human biology.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 7:31 PM
He's demonstrated that his argument is not build on reason it's only built on his incredible fear and hate of the queers.
Um, yeah.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 7:31 PM
HG #315 wrote:
No, you misunderstand the situation. You can't look at a restriction and then demand that the individual prove to the government that they shouldn't be restricted. The presumption is for liberty. Tradition does not outweigh human rights - or we would still have slaves, and segregated schools.
Every individual has the right to marry the person they choose -- unless the State can demonstrate why they should not be so allowed. "No state shall deny to any of its citizens equal protection of the law." Not without just cause. Gays have been singled out, and the burden is on the government to show that gay marriage will cause actual harm. We have to be very careful with how the power of the state is applied.
Gay marriage is very much like inter-racial marriage, in that the only arguments against it are tradition, religion, and "ickiness." Polygamy and incest bring up other, very different problems: social problems with extending a two-party contract to more than two, effecting existing marriages -- and problems related to genetics.
By bringing up incest and polygamy, you're essentially shifting the argument -- and implicitly granting that gay marriage, in itself, causes no harm. It might lead to something else that does cause harm. But that's a very bad argument. And it's one they brought up with inter-racial marriage, too. That if you allowed a black man to marry a white woman, next thing you knew men would be marrying their daughters, or their goats.
If the only real argument you have is bad analogies on a slippery slope, there's nothing there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 7:39 PM
The previous message was brought to you commercial free by Captain Obvious
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 7:42 PM
Homosexuality is not real compatible with human biology.
never done cunnilingus? seems tongues fit vaginas quite well in my experience. My partners haven't complained.
is there some sexual dimorphism in human tongues I'm unaware of?
In the same way I don't want to allow marriage to be changed to allow homosexuals to marry.
again, the same argument racists made. Again, inevitably doomed to failure because of inherently irrational nature of it.
You're ideology is doomed to the scrap heap. Adapt or die out, freak.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 7:44 PM
Our boy HG is using the slippery slope fallacy to justify his homophobia.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 7:46 PM
I'm still curious about how he is defining "always" in terms of marriage having "always been such and such." An operational definition and some data backing up that claim would be nice.
Yes, we are. Because there is no rational reason to deny them that right, any more than there was a rational reason to deny certain segments of the population the right to vote.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 7:47 PM
What I find amazing about homophobes like HG. 1) The mental contortions they use to justify their position. 2) The lack of awareness by not putting themselves in the position of being prejudiced against. 3) Their pride in being bigots.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 7:58 PM
God hates fags. HG is just doing teh Lord's work.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 28, 2009 8:01 PM
Porn! Porn on a science blog!
Carry on.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 8:04 PM
That's porn?
...
...
...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 8:10 PM
No, that's fun...Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 8:13 PM
*nods approvingly*
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 8:17 PM
*nods approvingly*
nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Posted by: amphiox | May 28, 2009 8:19 PM
The polygamy and incest argument is a complete strawman anyways. These are unequal and unfair relationships. The same principle - equality - that argues in favor of homosexual marriage immediately argues vehemently against polygamy and incest.
So the "slippery" slope is actually sloping uphill.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 8:20 PM
Ha!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 8:22 PM
But is no less fallacious.
Posted by: amphiox | May 28, 2009 8:23 PM
On the other hand, arguments from religion and custom against homosexual marriage are not rational proscriptions against polygamy or incest, as both have been condoned by multiple religions at multiple points in time, and both have been practiced as standard custom by a variety of cultures at a variety of times. The same is true for pedophilia.
It is those who argue in favor of "traditional" marriage, by establishing the primacy of arbitrary human convention over a fundamental principle like equality, that teeter on the edge of the precipice beyond which lie the atypical sexual practices which they abhor.
Posted by: Monado | May 28, 2009 8:24 PM
I like that they didn't try to dissolve marriages that had already been contracted. That would have been a mess, like trying to take the sugar out of coffee.
Surely they didn't have to uphold the ban since it is arguably unconstitutional, since some law-abiding, mentally competent citizens (but not all) are barred from marrying women and some law-abiding, mentally competent citizens (but not all) are barred from marrying men. Stick in your own qualifiers: unrelated, over the age of consent, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 8:27 PM
It is those who argue in favor of "traditional" marriage, by establishing the primacy of arbitrary human convention over a fundamental principle like equality, that teeter on the edge of the precipice beyond which lie the atypical sexual practices which they abhor.
Nicely put.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 28, 2009 8:30 PM
Still love you guys.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 28, 2009 9:24 PM
I'm still curious about how he is defining "always" in terms of marriage having "always been such and such."
Josh, he meant "always" as in "for the past 6,000 years", would be my guess.
As for HG's Are you aware of the impact of homosexuality in practice? I would dearly love to know what he means by that. I suspect he's talking about how much we're annoying his god and that we'll bring down another katrina on our heads or something. If he's worried about the physical acts involved, then he should not worry about the gays as these are enjoyed by heteros as well and in even greater numbers as evidenced by the same NIH link he provided up above.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 28, 2009 9:40 PM
*nods*
Quite possibly.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 28, 2009 9:49 PM
The numbers I was talking about back there from the NIH link show that of the approximately 150 million males in the US approximately 40% of them, or 60 million have done the same thing that HG thinks is in some way unnatural for the approximately 3 million gay men (by his count) to have done. These are rough (no pun intended) numbers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 9:58 PM
I would dearly love to know what he means by that.
*sigh*
my guess?
AIDS=Punishment from Gawp.
he's blindingly retarded, so it would fit.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
May 28, 2009 10:17 PM
There are three reasons to be against single-sex marriage:
1. God thinks what gays do in bed is icky.
2. Folks like HG think that what gays do in bed is icky.
3. If gays are allowed to get married then HG's wife and he will have to get divorced and he'll have to marry some guy.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 10:35 PM
My only concern about Gay marriage is that ( given the association of marriage and children ) Gay couples having children and raising them with 2 daddies or 2 mummies means the child loses one of thier biological parents. Now thats a tragedy when its an unforeseen event but PLANNING to deny a child one of its parents just seems wrong.
Fuck off.
My biological parent was an asswipe who ran off without looking back, who did absolutely zero for me all my life, and I felt nothing when he died, except a very uncharitable relief that there was one less selfish bastard in the world.
My stepfather, who came out of the closet when he couldn't live the lie anymore, was my father in ever sense of the word. He did all the things that a real parent does. Shooting off a wad of cum (or being the repository of it) doesn't make you a parent--it's what you do.
Again, fuck off about the biological parents thing. Too many biological parents are worthless.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 28, 2009 11:47 PM
HG,
"Are you aware of the impact of homosexuality in practice? Homosexuality is not real compatible with human biology."
Time will tell on that, human behavior is pretty flexible. Now that the homosexual phenotype is socially acceptable, if you are correct, the genes predisposing to it in this social context will decrease in frequency in future generations. It might be a loss to the human race however, because presumably the phenotypes those genes were channeled into in less tolerant environments increased evolutionary fitness.
Posted by: Mike Mixer | May 29, 2009 1:00 AM
This has always been and ever shall be a equal protection fight. To deny some a right that others enjoy is unconstitutional pure and simple and 2 lawyers are headed to that same court to remind the justices of that. They are allowing some gays to remain married, where they get the idea
that they can tell others they can't now is a mystery. Ammendment or not the court has to either allow gay marriage or cancel all the marriages taken place, this imaginary middle ground they carved out is illegal.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 29, 2009 9:14 AM
I'm interested:
What are the arguments against polygamy?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 29, 2009 12:28 PM
I think the argument against polygamy, like pederasty, is that it is, or may be, undertaken without consent of all parties.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 29, 2009 2:59 PM
Okay I'll rephrase:
What are the arguments against consensual polygamy (i.e. when all parties involved are know about it and are fine with it)?
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 29, 2009 4:47 PM
In theory, there's nothing wrong with it that I know of. The problem is that in practice, it occurs almost exclusively in these brainwashing patriarchal cults where even if women claim to be consenting, they have quite obviously been reduced to a caricature of rational autonomy. It would be very difficult to legalize polygamy for consenting adults without effectively condemning these other women to slavery.
The answer to the question "what's wrong with polygamy" is the same as the answer to the question "why is polyandry almost nonexistent while polygyny is widespread?"
Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 7:45 AM
"The answer to the question "what's wrong with polygamy" is the same as the answer to the question "why is polyandry almost nonexistent while polygyny is widespread?""
The problem with polyandry is not knowing who the biological father is, combined with limited reproductive capacity.
"It would be very difficult to legalize polygamy for consenting adults without effectively condemning these other women to slavery."
Presumably consensual adults can practice it without a government license. Are the women better protected?
Posted by: Cathy | May 30, 2009 1:13 PM
In addition to #352, I have heard this argument against polygamy: It tends to destabilize society, in part because the older/richer/more powerful males tend to snap up (marry) all the females, leaving a large group of young males who can't mate and who are therefore frustrated. I read somewhere that it also tends to lead to a type of incest, in which young males who don't have access to single women often become attracted to the much-younger wives of their own fathers...And of course, some of these young women respond to the attentions of their age-peers.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 11:13 PM
Cathy#354,
"It tends to destabilize society, in part because the older/richer/more powerful males tend to snap up (marry) all the females, leaving a large group of young males who can't mate and who are therefore frustrated."
Hopefully you are wrong about the instability, because China is facing the same problem because of the one child policy and their cultural preference for males.
With you "snap up" phrase you aren't giving due credit to the females involved. They are easy to snap up, because polygamy gives them access to better genes than they would otherwise be able secure on the merits or their own genes, along with the resources to invest in those offspring. There is a tendency in the females to cuckold their "mates" to gain access to these genes in the absence of a legitimate polygamy. The current situation of serial "monogamy" with divorced and abandoned women and children is what must be contrasted with polygamy, not the mythical ideal of heterosexual monogamy. With wealth, even the middle and lower classes have been able to behave with a reproductive irresponsibility that was once the preserve of the nobility.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
June 1, 2009 2:42 PM
So really, some of the arguments against polygamy are similar to some arguments against prostitution or pornography? And they could potentially be solved by sufficient government regulation? Or is that unrealistic?
Posted by: africangenesis | June 2, 2009 1:54 AM
Alex Deam,
The government persecution of polygamy is partially to blame for the serial monogamy mess, that leaves us with hords of divorced and single mothers looking to government to be the provider they failed to secure. The problem is partially cultural, the lack of female acceptance of polygamy. By holding out for monogamous exclusivity they are engendering resentment that destroys many of their marriages and leaves them with minimal male investment. A successful male is going to be in demand for opportunistic access to his genes, and for the investment he can make. Polygamy will secure the investment in children for more woman and children, and reduce the social pressure to break the original pair bond. Since currently divorces often occur once the original female has limited fertility and thus marketability left, serial monogamy is particularly tragic for the biologically disadvantaged female. Polygamy would provide continued support and status to the orginal female as she retains the authority of the number 1 wife, while being able to share her child rearing wisdom with the new younger female addition.