Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

The Federal Constitution does not deny the individual the ability to define classes of citizens.

I cannot prove a negative here, short of posting the entire Constitution and saying "See, it isn't there!".

If you disagree, then point out the exact part of the Constitution where it says individuals cannot do this.
 
You would argue, then, that the Civil Rights Act, FHAA, and EEOA are all unconstitutional?

You would also consider, (if you look at a community as a cluster of individuals), racially discriminatory residential covenants to be perfectly fine and legal? Speaking not on law, but on the constitution.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You would argue, then, that the Civil Rights Act, FHAA, and EEOA are all unconstitutional?[/quote]

Parts of them, yes. The parts dealing with Federal, State and Local governments, no - they're perfectly Constitutional.

[quote name='mykevermin']You would also consider, (if you look at a community as a cluster of individuals), racially discriminatory residential covenants to be perfectly fine and legal? Speaking not on law, but on the constitution.[/QUOTE]

See, this is where you need to watch your wording. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine". For example, Abortion is legal - and should be. But I would hardly say it's "perfectly fine" in the majority of cases.

As for residential covenants - it depends - were tax payer dollars used in the construction of the neighborhood?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In a world where our government takes away our right to associate, the first store and the second store are one and the same. The guy in the first store has to fake being nice for fear that his store could get into legal trouble. Do you really want to give him your money? Do you really want to support his business? Wouldn't it be much nicer to just know which stores are ran by ignorant people so you can stay away from them and not support them?[/QUOTE]

First of all, your Green Martians are a horrible analogy. No one takes jobs. A job is offered and people apply. Maybe if the White Martians didn't act like real work was demeaning and too hard, then they'd still have some jobs.

Second, I'll respond to the quote above. I don't care if a person is ignorant. I don't take someone's religious/social/political beliefs when I go into a store because then I'd never buy anything. Walt Disney was a vicious anti-semite but I still like Pinocchio. Lion King was a great movie. I'm not supporting his point of view by buying his product. I'm supporting his product. The only time I'll boycott is when someone is using sweatshop labor or destroying the environment to produce the product. I'm not disagreeing with their political views. I'm disagreeing with their business practices. Sometimes the two are muddled but I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Parts of them, yes. The parts dealing with Federal, State and Local governments, no - they're perfectly Constitutional.[/quote]

Elaborate on this argument.

As for residential covenants - it depends - were tax payer dollars used in the construction of the neighborhood?
Click to expand...

At what point in time? That's hardly a useful or definable metric to base the strength of race-restrictive covenants. If you want to parse things down to a point of absurd hypotheticals (e.g., no tax dollars were used), then you might as well argue that parts of the USA aren't parts of the USA.
 
[quote name='depascal22']First of all, your Green Martians are a horrible analogy. No one takes jobs. A job is offered and people apply. Maybe if the White Martians didn't act like real work was demeaning and too hard, then they'd still have some jobs.

Second, I'll respond to the quote above. I don't care if a person is ignorant. I don't take someone's religious/social/political beliefs when I go into a store because then I'd never buy anything. Walt Disney was a vicious anti-semite but I still like Pinocchio. Lion King was a great movie. I'm not supporting his point of view by buying his product. I'm supporting his product. The only time I'll boycott is when someone is using sweatshop labor or destroying the environment to produce the product. I'm not disagreeing with their political views. I'm disagreeing with their business practices. Sometimes the two are muddled but I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.[/QUOTE]

The "They took our jobs", of course, being a throwback to those who claim the illegals are taking jobs - not my personal point of view. I'm personally sad you didn't catch the "They took our jobs" along with the "They're lazy" comment. ;)

So, basically, you're perfectly okay with handing money over to individuals who hate because of race, religion or sexual orientation. I'm not. Because I have no idea what they're going to do with that money once I give it to them.

As for Disney - since he's dead, I guess you're not really supporting his POV by buying stuff with his name on it. But, let's say we were in the 40's and it turned out Disney was sending his wealth to Hitler () to kill Jews. Would you *still* buy that copy of Pinocchio?
 
How much double talk are you going to throw into a discussion without actually discussing what you mean? Quit making Internet jokes that no one will get because irony and sarcasm do not translate here. Make your point and move.

You personally think it's perfectly LEGAL to discriminate against someone because of race/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. You also think that every major piece of Civil Rights Legislation over the history of this country is Unconstitutional. According to your logic, the only people that have the right to run businesses, vote, own a gun, or do anything guaranteed by the Constitution are White land owning males. Neighborhoods and businesses should be resegregated. Blacks should only go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Native Americans will have to go back to those awful reservation schools or "Indian Universities" like Carlisle. Women will be back in the kitchen....blah blah blah. It's just more conservative bullshit.
 
I love when people blow things completely out of proportion by "using someone else's logic". Whether it be a liberal or conservative doing it, it always gives me something to laugh about.
 
[quote name='depascal22']How much double talk are you going to throw into a discussion without actually discussing what you mean? Quit making Internet jokes that no one will get because irony and sarcasm do not translate here. Make your point and move.

You personally think it's perfectly LEGAL to discriminate against someone because of race/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. You also think that every major piece of Civil Rights Legislation over the history of this country is Unconstitutional. According to your logic, the only people that have the right to run businesses, vote, own a gun, or do anything guaranteed by the Constitution are White land owning males. Neighborhoods and businesses should be resegregated. Blacks should only go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Native Americans will have to go back to those awful reservation schools or "Indian Universities" like Carlisle. Women will be back in the kitchen....blah blah blah. It's just more conservative bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Where did you get the "White land owning males" stuff from?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The Federal Constitution does not deny the individual the ability to define classes of citizens.

I cannot prove a negative here, short of posting the entire Constitution and saying "See, it isn't there!".[/QUOTE]

There generally aren't many provisions in the Constitution that restrict private parties. I can only think of the 13th Amendment off the top of my head; it may be the only one.

That doesn't translate to a negative grant in terms of Congress's legislative authority, however. It certainly doesn't have the power to restrict private action persuant to the 5th/14th Amendments if that's what you're getting at, but that doesn't close out every other avenue (e.g. Commerce power). Or is your point that Congress has no power to regulate private activity at all?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.[/QUOTE]
Please show me where it was proven that sexual orientation and physical attraction are a conscious choice made by anyone. With the amount of constant crap thrown at homosexuals and the LGBT community, I don't think anyone of sound mind and body would choose to endure that.

Once again, let's stop pretending that the gay community are okay to make fun of. Ignorance still isn't okay, regardless of who it's directed at.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.[/QUOTE]

That's an unfair comparison. That would be like comparing apples to oranges, or comparing you to someone who isn't an absolute moron.
 
Thought this thread would appreciate this story:

Gay Penguin dads in German Zoo Hatch Chick

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/gay-penguin-dads-in-german-zoo-hatch-chick.html

Z and Vielpunkt, two male Humboldt penguins at Germany's Bremerhaven Zoo, are the proud new parents of a healthy penguin chick.
"Another couple threw the egg out of their batch. We picked it up and put it in the nest of the gay penguins," veterinarian Joachim Schöne told the German newspaper Bild of the pair's entry into parenthood. Z and Vielpunkt faithfully cared for their adopted egg for more than a month; in late April it hatched. Since then, they've been taking care of their chick around the clock; it's still too young to feed itself, so the dads feed him fish mash, Schöne explained.
"Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do," the zoo said in a statement.
The Bremerhaven Zoo's same-sex penguin couples (there are three such pairs in residence there, all males) first made news back in 2005, according to the BBC. At the time, the zoo announced plans to "test" the sexual orientations of the six penguins, who'd been seen engaging in mating rituals and trying to incubate rocks as if they were eggs. Gay rights advocates were outraged when the zoo brought four new female penguins into the colony in a bid to encourage the penguins to reproduce, and the zoo later nixed the idea. (In the zoo's defense, Humboldt penguins are classified as vulnerable to extinction, so it does make a certain amount of sense to be concerned about them reproducing. And since Z and Vielpunkt have done just that, everyone wins!)

Z and Vielpunkt aren't the first same-sex penguin pair to successfully care for a chick. Another such couple were male chinstrap penguin residents of New York's Central Park Zoo named Roy and Silo. Roy and Silo, much like the Bremerhaven penguins, were so anxious to hatch an egg that they tried incubating a rock. They were eventually given an "orphaned" fertile egg and successfully raised a female chick named Tango.
Another male penguin couple were removed from their colony in a Chinese zoo last year when they repeatedly tried to steal eggs from male-and-female pairs. (In a rather ingenious move, they actually replaced the eggs they were stealing with rocks.) But visitors complained when the penguins were removed, and eventually they were given two eggs of their own. Since then, a keeper told the Daily Mail, "they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The only penguins I like are from Pittsburgh. Gay or not.

And they're the ONLY thing I like from Pittsburgh.[/QUOTE]

They're not gay, they're ghey. Not sexual, pejorative.

Go Red Wings.
 
I support same sex marriage, even adoption, 100%. Any bans on either will ultimately fail in the USA, quite likely in my lifetime.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The only penguins I like are from Pittsburgh. Gay or not.

And they're the ONLY thing I like from Pittsburgh.[/QUOTE]

Hey Thanks!
 
These poll results are encouraging. It's nice to see the prejudice and hate withering away with a younger, more tolerant, generation. It seems to be the people who are afraid of change and other views that are the loudest and more likely to stir the pot. Obviously I support it and when I think about it, I've found that all of the gay people (men or women) I've met in my life are quite friendly, down to earth and likeable.
 
6a00d83451c45669e2011570b1f019970b-800wi.gif
 
year old bump.

looks like a judge is about to rule that prop 8 is unconstitutional. next stop, supreme court?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Amen brother. I'm happy the ruling came out this way, though it wasn't entirely unexpected. A lot of the things the judge was doing made it seem like he was sympathetic to the gay marriage peeps.

Yeah definitely going to the Supreme Court. The deciding vote will be Kennedy. Last time this issue of gayness came up was criminalizing (!) sodomy. Kennedy was the 5th vote.
 
[quote name='IRHari'] A lot of the things the judge was doing made it seem like he was sympathetic to the gay marriage peeps.

[/QUOTE]

like the judge being gay ;)
 
im wondering if this means gays can line up at the court house and get married tomorrow? facebook is blowing up with my gay friends posts, sounds like theres gonna be a party tonight.
 
sorry guys the judge is a bias queer. thank god fox news gave me the REAL STORY THE LIEBERAL MEDIA REFUSES TO REPORT!!!!!!!!

Why Has Media Ignored Judge's Possible Bias In California's Gay Marriage Case?

Any minute now we will hear the result of another lawsuit about same-sex marriage.

This month a federal judge in Massachusetts threw out a Congressional law which defined marriage as the union of man and woman.

Soon a federal judge in California is going to rule in a lawsuit challenging “Proposition 8," the referendum by which California’s voters kept the traditional meaning of marriage in their law.

If the pending ruling throws out Prop. 8 – as it very likely will – it would be the biggest victory so far for those promoting same-sex marriage in the United States.

These high stakes have attracted a lot of attention to the California case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But not enough attention – in fact, almost none – has been paid to one very troubling aspect of the case.

This is the question of the judge’s bias due to his possible interest in which side wins the case.

Judge Vaughan Walker has surprised just about everyone with his unorthodox handling of the Prop. 8 trial.

Supporters describe him as iconoclastic and creative. Those less enamored have charged him with turning the proceedings into a sensationalized show-trial.

Both sets of observers could probably agree with the explanation offered by conservative commentator Ed Whelan who has observed that Walker has been determined from the outset “to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.”

I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trial began.

But that is not the bias that has received too little attention.

Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker’s belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.

Of course, Walker’s opinions about marriage and sexual preference could be related to his own homosexuality.

But even if they are, it does not follow that he would be incapable of being impartial and of rendering a judgment in accord with the law in the Prop. 8 case – any more than a happily married heterosexual would necessarily be.

In fact, all judges have beliefs and personal habits which intersect from time to time with the matters in dispute before them. We do not require judges to be blank slates without a personal life. Judges are not automatons.

All we ask and what we rightly expect is that judges put aside those things insofar as they might interfere with deciding a case fairly and in accord with the law.

But no one is immune to all conflicts of interest or of belief.

So our law rightly requires that public officials – judges included – stay out of matters in which they have a financial stake. It is not that everyone would be corrupted by the prospect of financial gain. Not at all.

But some people would be corrupted. And everyone can have greater confidence in the outcome of public deliberations when they know that at least one temptation towards corruption has been removed.

The neglected bias in the Prop. 8 trial has instead to do with the fact that – as reported in The Los Angeles Times last month – Judge Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.”

If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California.

This raises an important and serious question about his fitness to preside over the case. Yet it is a question that received almost no attention.

When a judge is obliged to withdraw from a case due to a conflicting interest we call it “recusal.”

Federal law requires that, whenever a judge knows that he has “any other interest [ that is, besides a financial interest] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” at hand, or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, he must recuse himself.

I am not saying that Judge Walker should have refused himself in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

I am not saying so because nowhere (as far as I know) has Judge Walker volunteered or been made to answer questions about how the outcome of that case would affect his interest (whatever it is) in marrying, and thus his interest in the manifold tangible and intangible benefits of doing so.

That is a conversation worth having.

And, sadly, it is quite too late to have it.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/gerard-bradley-proposition-marriage-sex-california-judge/

- edit [quote name='Kirin Lemon']I can hear Fox News now - "Activist judge! Activist judge!"[/QUOTE]

close :lol:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You silly kids playing in in the mud did notice it says OPINION at the top of the article, right?[/QUOTE]

I don't recall specifying exactly *who* at Fox News I expected to throw a tantrum about this. Their bread and butter has never been facts so much as it's been opinions, anyways.
 
^ Because it's a pants-shittingly STUPID opinion, thrustie, darling.

The opinion is premised on this: the judge has a sexual orientation, therefore the judge can not rule in a judicious manner.

So, go find me a fuckin' eunuch judge and we'll send it in his...err...her...crap...*its* direction.

Seriously, the judge is a problem because of who he wants to fuck or share a dirty martini with? That voids EVERYONE with a sexual orientation.

FOX News' argument is this: having a sexual orientation = having a bias.

And that is why liberals are condescending: because the lot of you righties are fucking incomprehensibly stupid.
 
Why is it that things which seem sensible to, well sensible people, always seem incredible to fox news?
 
This is just my opinion, but, shouldn't the church control all this? I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church. If they want to control it, let them. We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.
 
[quote name='Brownjohn'] Apparently voting no longer matters.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Judge John E. Jones']If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.
There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision. I joked in the beginning about being an activist judge; had I decided this case in a different way, had I disregarded the facts, had I disregarded existing precedent, had I 'taken one for the team,' as it were, I would have truly been an activist judge in that case.
[/QUOTE]

It's weird to have civil rights decided by a majority vote.

Can we have interracial marriage on the ballot next?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top