California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marraige

D

dmaul1114

Banned
Fix the economy through permitting the gay marriage economy to boom, and, in a few years, the gay divorce economy to boom.

Trickle-down economics at its finest!

;)

Truth be told, I wonder what those who consider themselves conservative or Republican feel about this. It's an issue where a court, a state-based institution, basically ruled that the will of the majority of the people doesn't mean shit.

So here we are, at the intersection of a very complex situation. A majority of the people has voted to ensure that another group of American citizens, protected by the Constitution, do not get the same rights, freedoms, and liberties as the majority does. So, do we favor government interference to ensure that all Americans have the same rights, freedoms, and liberties, or do we allow the "freedoms and liberties" of the voting majority to take precedence, even if the will of the majority is to subjugate a minority group?
 
Gay marriage is irrelevant here. What I find really disturbing is a supreme court usurping the peoples vote.

If the people of California had gone through all the trouble of getting something on a ballot to be voted on in a general election, what is the fucking point if it can be stomped out? Majority rule my ass.

If the people of California voted to have "Marriage" mean only between lizards and Ikea furniture, then that's the way it should be.

Very frighting indeed, the power of courts over the will of the people.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Gay marriage is irrelevant here. What I find really disturbing is a supreme court usurping the peoples vote.[/QUOTE]

You mean like in the 2000 election?

This was wonderful news to wake up to. I can only hope the same thing happens country-wide.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fix the economy through permitting the gay marriage economy to boom, and, in a few years, the gay divorce economy to boom.

Trickle-down economics at its finest!

;)

Truth be told, I wonder what those who consider themselves conservative or Republican feel about this. It's an issue where a court, a state-based institution, basically ruled that the will of the majority of the people doesn't mean shit.

So here we are, at the intersection of a very complex situation. A majority of the people has voted to ensure that another group of American citizens, protected by the Constitution, do not get the same rights, freedoms, and liberties as the majority does. So, do we favor government interference to ensure that all Americans have the same rights, freedoms, and liberties, or do we allow the "freedoms and liberties" of the voting majority to take precedence, even if the will of the majority is to subjugate a minority group?[/QUOTE]

Aw you beat my last post!

As you point out, the real issue here is courts over ruling the will of the people.

The original vote by the people, if I'm correct, was just how marriage should be defined. I don't see why more laws couldn't be passed to create all the same "rights" and "privileges" for domestic partnerships. After that point, what the government calls something is no longer a rights issue.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']You mean like in the 2000 election?
[/QUOTE]

The 2000 election results weren't nearly as clear cut and straight-forward as the Californian vote results on this issue.

Authoritarianism ftw today.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Very frighting indeed, the power of courts over the will of the people.[/QUOTE]

What if we were talking about a $30 per year "Affirmative Action Tax" that the majority voted on, that only census-declared white folks had to pay?

Or if we were talking about a voted-on-and-approved repeal of the emancipation proclamation and the repeal of slavery?

Again, it's not a simple "the courts are overthrowing the will of the people" scenario. It's more of a "the courts are overthrowing the will of the people to vote in favor of legislating and conferring inherent second-class statuses on other people" scenario.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What if we were talking about a $30 per year "Affirmative Action Tax" that the majority voted on, that only census-declared white folks had to pay?

Or if we were talking about a voted-on-and-approved repeal of the emancipation proclamation and the repeal of slavery?

Again, it's not a simple "the courts are overthrowing the will of the people" scenario. It's more of a "the courts are overthrowing the will of the people to vote in favor of legislating and conferring inherent second-class statuses on other people" scenario.[/QUOTE]

To me it is that simple. If a state, or even a county, voted on something in a general election that ran that contrary to the rest of the country's established laws, then that would mean they would have to repeal it or succeed from that country.

In the examples you give, if that were to happen, then the Federal Government (since it has already decided on those issues) would have to revoke the states statehood.

Your comparison is almost moot though, because this issue has not been decided on a Federal level like your examples have.

As a side note, I think this court overruling just insured a much larger Republican turn out in the general election as a backlash. The disillusioned Republicats now have a rallying cry.
 
Ah, thank the homo hate for increasing your voting proportion.

Something, indeed, to be proud of.

:roll:

I enjoy your parsing situations based on federal establishment, since it shows you, like most conservatives, to capitulate to federal power when it suits you, and bash it every other opportunity when it isn't. Why are states' rights something you're willing to simply abandon, just because you happen to disapprove of the outcome?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
So here we are, at the intersection of a very complex situation. A majority of the people has voted to ensure that another group of American citizens, protected by the Constitution, do not get the same rights, freedoms, and liberties as the majority does. So, do we favor government interference to ensure that all Americans have the same rights, freedoms, and liberties, or do we allow the "freedoms and liberties" of the voting majority to take precedence, even if the will of the majority is to subjugate a minority group?[/QUOTE]

I think government interference is required here, just like it was to end segregation.

Sometimes minority groups need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

I have problems with government's infringe on the rights of their citizens, but not when they interfere to protect the rights of some of their citizens in a manner than does not infringe on the rights of others.

Gay marriage hurts non-gays in no way, shape or form. Aside from legal/government purposes, no one has to acknowledge these marriages. They're valid in the eyes of the state, churches, other groups and individual citizens don't have to recognize them as married. Nor are their own marriages affected in anyway.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The disillusioned Republicats now have a rallying cry.[/QUOTE]
"Let's be hateful, fear mongering bigots!" isn't exact a rallying cry I'd be proud of.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I think government interference is required here, just like it was to end segregation.

Sometimes minority groups need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

I have problems with government's infringe on the rights of their citizens, but not when they interfere to protect the rights of some of their citizens in a manner than does not infringe on the rights of others.

Gay marriage hurts non-gays in no way, shape or form. Aside from legal/government purposes, no one has to acknowledge these marriages. They're valid in the eyes of the state, churches, other groups and individual citizens don't have to recognize them as married. Nor are their own marriages affected in anyway.[/QUOTE]
This.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ah, thank the homo hate for increasing your voting proportion.[/quote]

It isn't MY voting proportion. It was an observation is all.

I enjoy your parsing situations based on federal establishment, since it shows you, like most conservatives, to capitulate to federal power when it suits you, and bash it every other opportunity when it isn't. Why are states' rights something you're willing to simply abandon, just because you happen to disapprove of the outcome?
Click to expand...

Name another time when I capitulated to federal power when it suited me? I think I have been rather consistent about the fact that I believe power should go to the most local forms of government possible.

You are changing the whole discussion.

This really has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with courts > voting.

Believe you me sir, if California had originally voted to make Gay Marriage legal, and the court today just overturned it, I'd be just as disgusted.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']"Let's be hateful, fear mongering bigots!" isn't exact a rallying cry I'd be proud of.[/QUOTE]

And "Let's show the people that getting things on ballots and showing up at voting booths is ultimately meaningless" is a great boon to the concept of freedom, democracy, and individual rights.
 
So the democratic passage of a law allowing hierarchies of citizenry to be established, which ultimately undermines the very concept of a democracy, is cool?

Why not give the queers 3/5 vote while you're at it? It's not like the right's going to win CA or MS anyway, so you might as well cut into their legally-recognized population and by virtue, their electoral votes and proportional representation in the house as well.

Why stop at just denying them marriage?

This is, at its base, very much a "I'm in the majority of white, straight America, so I have nothing to fear from this" reaction IMO. If we were outlawing all marriage, or straight marriage, you'd get the fuckin' hint right quick.

EDIT: To a degree, we agree: this isn't about gay marriage. I'm down with that. But, rather than thinking it's about the court giving itself power over the people, it's about ensuring that the people don't vote to give themselves power over (wait for it!)...other people.

We've been down that road before.

I'm wondering if I should gather signatures to get a ballot on the general election: the "All Baptists have to make cupcakes for everyone else on October 12th" amendment. A constitutional ban on Baptists not making me a delicious, delicious cupcake.

And if you don't put those rainbow jimmies on it, then you're going to be indicted.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
This is, at its base, very much a "I'm in the majority of white, straight America, so I have nothing to fear from this" reaction IMO. If we were outlawing all marriage, or straight marriage, you'd get the fuckin' hint right quick.

EDIT: To a degree, we agree: this isn't about gay marriage. I'm down with that. But, rather than thinking it's about the court giving itself power over the people, it's about ensuring that the people don't vote to give themselves power over (wait for it!)...other people.

We've been down that road before.[/QUOTE]

It's about ensuring equal rights under the law for all citizens, which is protected by the constitution. The problem is sexual orientation isn't explicitly listed like race and gender have been through amendments.

Ensuring equal rights under the law is the only time I'm ok with the government overturning the will of the majority. It should be their duty to protect law abiding citizens from not having equal rights to the majority social groups.

So they either step in and allow gay marriage. Or they disband all legal benefits of marriage and make it entirely secular. No more tax benefits/penalties for married couples, no legal power to make decisions for spouse automatically when married--they can do a power of attorney document, living will etc. like non-married couples etc.

Then marriage is entirely secular and it's not a state or federal issue. It's just a symbol like it should be.

I'm fine with either solution probably. But I imagine most married, straight folks won't like the latter at all, and would prefer to continue denying gay couples rights they enjoy as straights.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm fine with either solution probably. But I imagine most married, straight folks won't like the latter at all, and would prefer to continue denying gay couples rights they enjoy as straights.[/QUOTE]

You're right about *married* folks. A lot of numbskulls voted in a way that they cut off their nose to spite their face when they passed anti-gay-marriage laws. Mainly because they, as a result, made "common law" marriages illegal as well.

So a large number of folks lost out on the legal benefits of marriage themselves. Serves the fuckers right.
 
First of all, I don't believe this was a rights issue at all. It's about the definition of a word. It's like if they voted to call the color "red" "blue" from now on.

Second, the issue itself is irrelevant, if a majority votes on something, I believe that's the way it should be - even if you or I hate it or think it's stupid. (For the record, I think it's dumb to vote on the definition of a word in the first place)

Now, separately from that, if a case can be made that discrimination occurs from that vote - I don't see why homosexuals couldn't get a law passed that says they still have all the same rights as married people in their domestic partnerships. That should be quite easy in California. The only difference would be their government paperwork wouldn't have the word "marriage" on it. That's it. I don't see that as discrimination if they get all the same government benefits.

This is, at its base, very much a "I'm in the majority of white, straight America, so I have nothing to fear from this" reaction IMO. If we were outlawing all marriage, or straight marriage, you'd get the in' hint right quick.
Click to expand...

Ultimately I think I would laugh if that happened, because I think it's stupid that marriage, or anyone's relationship, needs help being defined by government. The only time it might make sense is when kids are involved and two people split up. Other than that, I think marriage is really just a personal relative thing that the government has no right to even talk about.

You talk about voting power over other people, but isn't that pretty much what political parties are for? Isn't that really, ultimately, what happens in every vote? Whoever is on the disagreeing/losing side, essentially DOES get oppressed when out-voted. In most cases when your cause is lost, it's tough shit. Move if you don't like it, the majority has spoken.

And just as a caveat, my own personal views on gay marriage is: I think the government should NOT recognize marriage to begin with. It isn't their business how a marriage is performed, who or what is involved, and what benefits it should give you. But that's way outside the scope of this thread.
 
It is a rights issue, most of the people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever else you want to call gay "marriage." These people simply don't want gay couples to have the rights and protections they get as they think homosexuality is a sin, is repulstive, disgustion etc.

Now that's just anecdotal based on people I know that have strong opions, so I don't mean it to be representative of all people opposing gay marriage. But I do think the majority would be just as opposed to civil unions or whatever as they are to gay marriage.

It's not black and white totally, but it's more or less:

1. People who have no problems with gay couples having the same rights as straight couples.
2. People who don't want gay couples to receive any kind of formal recognition as it represents a "legitimization" or "approval" of homosexuality.

Of course there are people like you (and myself to an extent) who think gov't should just get out of marriage and leave it totally secular with no legal of fiscal benefits or penalties etc. But for the most part the issue is pretty much the two options above.

Point being it is an issue of discrimination and creating a sub-human class versus an issue of semantics as you suggest IMHO.l
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']First of all, I don't believe this was a rights issue at all. It's about the definition of a word. It's like if they voted to call the color "red" "blue" from now on.[/QUOTE]

thrust is among the most fucking dimwitted people in the history of the written word.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a rights issue, most of the people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever else you want to call gay "marriage." These people simply don't want gay couples to have the rights and protections they get as they think homosexuality is a sin, is repulstive, disgustion etc.

[/QUOTE]

It is possible that my opinion on the matter is somewhat influenced by the fact that I don't personally know anyone that believes the word "marriage" should be defined as union between man and woman also feel the way you suggest above.

Even the people I know that think homesexuality is a "sin, repulsive, digusting etc" certainly don't believe homosexuals should be treated differently or have less rights.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It is possible that my opinion on the matter is somewhat influenced by the fact that I don't personally know anyone that believes the word "marriage" should be defined as union between man and woman also feel the way you suggest above.

Even the people I know that think homesexuality is a "sin, repulsive, digusting etc" certainly don't believe homosexuals should be treated differently or have less rights.[/QUOTE]

See, so you just don't know people who oppose gay marriage. Most people I know don't either, and that includes people who have no problems with gays and people who think it's a sin etc.

But the people I know who are up in arms about making sure gay marriage is banned are all the type that are just anti gay in general.

Again, there's no other reason to oppose gay marriage while upholding the legal benefits of marriage for straights.

It's either give the same rights to both gay and straight couples, or have no legal rights tied to "marriage" for either. Those are the only logical options for someone who has no motive of discriminating against gays.

Opposing gay marriage/civil unions while keeping legal benefits in place for straight couples is discrimination. Period. You're treating people differently legally for no reason other than differing sexual orientations.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

Opposing gay marriage/civil unions while keeping legal benefits in place for straight couples is discrimination. Period. You're treating people differently legally for no reason other than differing sexual orientations.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But what about this scenario:

The people in a state vote to define the WORD marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Fine.

Homosexuals, wanting equal rights, instead of trying to redefine words, spend their energy on getting a law passed for their "marriage" to now be called "Civil Unions", and define a Civil Union as 2 people of the same sex. Then make all laws pertaining to Marriages also pertain to Civil Unions.

Problem Solved? If not, why?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Fair enough. But what about this scenario:

The people in a state vote to define the WORD marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Fine.

Homosexuals, wanting equal rights, instead of trying to redefine words, spend their energy on getting a law passed for their "marriage" to now be called "Civil Unions", and define a Civil Union as 2 people of the same sex. Then make all laws pertaining to Marriages also pertain to Civil Unions.

Problem Solved? If not, why?[/QUOTE]

I'm fine with it as long as the legal rights are identical.

But I see why some have issues. There's still some semantical demeaning of gays by having to have separate arrangement just because of their sexual orientation.

Probably the best bet (aside from having no legal benefits to marriage and making entirely secular) is to make "marriage" a religious term only recognized by churches. Then you have "domestic partnerships" which are legal recognition of a coupling for both straights and gays.

Then religious anti-gay folk don't have the marriage issue, and both straights and gays who want the legal benefits can get them by getting a separate domestic partnership that has nothing to do with religious marriage.

Some gays would still bitch probably, but most would probably be ok with that. But the serious homophobes would still bitch as the domestic partnership would still be seen as legitimizing and normalizing homosexuality in their eyes--and that's their main bone with gay marriage anyway.
 
The semantics argument is such a waste of time and is ultimately meaningless. The whole "they can have it BUT they have to concede to these demands...." just fuckin' SMACKS,

SMACKS, I tell you,

of white heterosexual hegemony that you don't realize you're imposing.

"Marriage" ain't trademarked. What gives YOU power over determining who can use a word and in what context?

Even if you want to be so kind so as to bestow this term upon your gay brethren (and so nice of you to make the decisions for those people who you are arguing have the same rights as you! :lol:), it's not your place to do so.

They can call it whatever the fuck they want, so long as (this is my guess) it doesn't violate copyrights, trademarks, or incite libel. So "marriage" is cool (and let's be quite clear in pointing out that NOT YOU, NOR ANYONE ELSE has dominion over that word, so it is not yours to give and take away as you see fit), "civil unions" is cool, but "Nintendo WiiMote" is out of the question, as might be "Pat Robertson's minions of lascivious and delectable evil."

Besides, that's a mouthful to say anyway.
 
I for one, being a Californian with a gay brother, am 100% against this. The biggest downfall to society is allocation of wealth in divorce. Our rainbow brothers and sisters have it great where they don't have to deal with this drama as a normal couple would. To top it off now they get the eternal struggle for and against taking a relationship "to the next level". I vote we have a movement to ban all marriage.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fix the economy through permitting the gay marriage economy to boom, and, in a few years, the gay divorce economy to boom.

Trickle-down economics at its finest!

;)[/QUOTE]

...and gay lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank!

Seriously though good for the CA supreme court and the people in California! It is a gay occasion indeed.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Gay marriage is irrelevant here. What I find really disturbing is a supreme court usurping the peoples vote.

If the people of California had gone through all the trouble of getting something on a ballot to be voted on in a general election, what is the fucking point if it can be stomped out? Majority rule my ass.

If the people of California voted to have "Marriage" mean only between lizards and Ikea furniture, then that's the way it should be.

Very frighting indeed, the power of courts over the will of the people.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?

The majority (heteros) should not be given the right to oppress the minority (homos). You insult liberals by implying ideological ties to communism, and now you say this?

If 51% of the state is female, and there's a 51% to 49% vote to enact legislation banning men from shopping malls, would you support it? Majority rule!

We would still have slavery if it were up to you. Hey, most of America thought slavery was just swell. How dare Abraham Lincoln oppose America's will! That asshole.
 
When I first heard about this, I thought about the timing of this ruling especially during an election year. But the more I think about it, there is so much shit going on in the world with the economy tanking, Iran having nuclear ambitions, Gas going up...

I am thinking that this issue will take a backseat to the other more important issues.

On a personal note, I have lots of gay friends and all I can say is good for them!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The semantics argument is such a waste of time and is ultimately meaningless. The whole "they can have it BUT they have to concede to these demands...." just fuckin' SMACKS,

SMACKS, I tell you,

of white heterosexual hegemony that you don't realize you're imposing.[/quote]

It was the definition of a word that was voted on. Not if we should be oppressive to a group, not if we should take rights away from a group, not if we should give rights to a group....... The definition of a word.
That isn't semantics, it's the facts. The definition of a word is not a civil right. Nobody was stopping Civil Unions from becoming treated exactly like marriages legally. To my knowledge, they didn't even try. Again, remember, the definition of a word - semantics.

"Marriage" ain't trademarked. What gives YOU power over determining who can use a word and in what context?
Click to expand...
Very good point. It's a word. And a relative word at that. But you can't ask that question without also asking:
What gives people the right to vote on it?
What gives a court the right to decide and determine who can use a word and in what context?

Ultimately this whole damn thing is semantics/farce from beginning to end using that angle. You and others here just don't want to admit it because you love the ruling. It's sad and scary to see so many celebrate what amounts to activism from the bench on the California tax payers dime, that's my ultimate complaint here.

Even if you want to be so kind so as to bestow this term upon your gay brethren (and so nice of you to make the decisions for those people who you are arguing have the same rights as you! :lol:), it's not your place to do so.
Click to expand...
Not my place. Not your place. Not voters place..... But apparently it is the governments place?


On another point though, this is great news for polygamists. The gate is wide open now. Who's to tell them the word "polygamy" isn't a valid marriage, right?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Are you serious?

The majority (heteros) should not be given the right to oppress the minority (homos). You insult liberals by implying ideological ties to communism, and now you say this?

If 51% of the state is female, and there's a 51% to 49% vote to enact legislation banning men from shopping malls, would you support it? Majority rule!

[/QUOTE]

None of that comes close to being analogous to this. Peoples rights were not voted on, or ruled on here. The definition of word was.

To make your comparison closer, 51% to 49% voted that male shoppers hold be called "ZipZanDo". Then the supreme court overruled it, saying it was unconstitutional.

Yay for them. Nobody cares. And I'd make fun of it as much as I do this. Huge waste of government resources to be voting and legislating on word definitions, imo.
 
Which is not true because of the legal rights inherent in marriage.

So, until you protest that all legal rights associated with marriage be taken away, then I have nothing but suspicion for your belief that their needs to be no government involvement in marriage.

(Aside from the fact that everyone can see the social function inherent in a government that provides incentives for marriage).

This "it's just defining a word" nonsense is for the birds.
 
Well you are right myke, ultimately this all just exposes what's wrong with government interference in marital rights. And I do protest that. But I'm in a minority..... will you fight for me as my lawyer being a minority? ;)
 
Waitwaitwait. How does it expose what's wrong with government interference?

The people's vote, after all, reflects their desire to prevent *one portion* of American society from marital rights and benefits. Very few people are arguing, in concert with this, that the government should strip away all rights associated with marriage. You are, but I don't suspect that's the motivating force behind most voters.

Christ, listening to that pro wrestler Michael Savage on the radio today, frothing at the mouth (not like he knows any other way), he is quite clearly motivated by vitriol against homosexuals and desires to see them classified as second-tier Americans, with fewer rights and liberties that you or I. So while you may have some noble keep-the-government-out-of-our-marriages viewpoint, I do not believe for a moment that those voting to oppress gays have the same noble motives.

But, by the by, I may be able to find some studies (;)), but Heath's your man on the stand. Ask him.
 
Mykevermin,

Here is a hypothetical I've been brewing on for a while, I'd like your response to.

Let's say a man is born white. But from a young age he claims to always feel black. He grows up only associating with "black culture" and wants nothing more than to be black. When he turns 18 he saves up all his money and buys all the surgical procedures currently available to him to make him as black as possible.

Would you say he has rights to have the government classify him as a black man? Does he have rights to apply for grants, scholarships, and partake of any AA type programs? Does he have a right to consider himself black on any paperwork?

How would you deal with a person like this? Or would you not consider it a legitimate, since it isn't common enough?

And before you ask, yes it's a serious question.
 
Oops, almost forgot to respond to your question...

[quote name='mykevermin']Waitwaitwait. How does it expose what's wrong with government interference?[/quote]

I guess I just really don't see marriage, and many other things for that matter, any government business. If it's a persons right to define marriage how they like (and I believe it is) then the government should have no say. It's like getting government approval on who you love.

Christ, listening to that pro wrestler Michael Savage on the radio today, frothing at the mouth (not like he knows any other way), he is quite clearly motivated by vitriol against homosexuals and desires to see them classified as second-tier Americans, with fewer rights and liberties that you or I. So while you may have some noble keep-the-government-out-of-our-marriages viewpoint, I do not believe for a moment that those voting to oppress gays have the same noble motives.
Click to expand...
I heard him a bit today as well, on the way home from work. And I agree with your assessment.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Mykevermin,

Here is a hypothetical I've been brewing on for a while, I'd like your response to.

Let's say a man is born white. But from a young age he claims to always feel black. He grows up only associating with "black culture" and wants nothing more than to be black. When he turns 18 he saves up all his money and buys all the surgical procedures currently available to him to make him as black as possible.

Would you say he has rights to have the government classify him as a black man? Does he have rights to apply for grants, scholarships, and partake of any AA type programs? Does he have a right to consider himself black on any paperwork?

How would you deal with a person like this? Or would you not consider it a legitimate, since it isn't common enough?

And before you ask, yes it's a serious question.[/QUOTE]
Well, California doesn't have affirmative action.
 
States should be able to have their governments treat marriage the way they want. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional under California's constitution. Therefore, if California wants to not recognize gay marriages, they will need to change their constitution.

I have no problem with the court's ruling, assuming it is correct from a legal standpoint (I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the California state constitution). "They overturned the will of the people" is not what I would consider a reasonable argument. If the will of the people is expressed through an enacted law and that law is shown to violate the constitution, absolutely the courts should strike it down. In other words, I fully support Marbury v Madison as precedent.

Myke - I do wonder why you use the term "white heterosexual" in your posts, since this issue has nothing at all to do with race. It is my understanding that in most states blacks voted more overwhelmingly for gay marriage bans than whites, so especially considering this I'm very curious as to why you attempt to bring race into an equation where it doesn't belong.
 
This whole process needs to hurry the fuck up because I got a tuxedo with a 2 foot tread and a rockin pair of stillettos. I just want to throw a manly bouqet and get presents from my family

Oh yes honey, I went there :nottalking:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It was the definition of a word that was voted on. Not if we should be oppressive to a group, not if we should take rights away from a group, not if we should give rights to a group....... The definition of a word.
[/QUOTE]

You need to get off this. It's pointless as RIGHTS are tied to the meaning of this word.

Marriage=legal rights. If marriage excludes same sex couples, then it's discrimination based on sexual orientation since rights are tied to marriage.

It's better if straights can have marriage and gays can have "civil unions" with the same legal rights. But it's still demeaning since they have to have something different. If gays get civil unions, guess we should have only let blacks have "domestic partnerships" or something after slavery since the majority of the people at the time didn't want them treated as equals either.

Again, in my opinion there are only two reasonable options:

1. Open legal marriage to gays.
2. Have no legal marriage, no benefits to being married at all. It's just a secular symbol.

You can't have marriage for straight couples with legal rights, and not for gays (or call it something else and emphasize their status as needing to be seperated from "normal" couples).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think government interference is required here, just like it was to end segregation.

Sometimes minority groups need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

I have problems with government's infringe on the rights of their citizens, but not when they interfere to protect the rights of some of their citizens in a manner than does not infringe on the rights of others.[/QUOTE]

This. This, this, this, a thousand times THIS.

I came in to make a post containing a couple of points, most notably the segregation metaphor -- if we waited for the "will of the people" to be behind the legislation, we'd still have black folks unable to eat at the same counter as whites. People weren't behind equal rights. I'll say it again: PEOPLE WEREN'T BEHIND EQUAL RIGHTS. But once it was imposed on them, they learned that black people being treated fairly "neither picks their pockets, not breaks their legs," to quote ol' Ben Franklin's view of "harm."

The other point I was going to make was the idea of "tyranny of the majority." There's a reason we're a democratic republic, and not a democracy, despite what most people commonly believe, and this is it: the majority is not entitled to harm the minority, simply by the virtue of being more populous. Or however John Stuart Mill said it.

In short: go California.
 
[quote name='lilboo']This whole process needs to hurry the fuck up because I got a tuxedo with a 2 foot tread and a rockin pair of stillettos. I just want to throw a manly bouqet and get presents from my family

Oh yes honey, I went there :nottalking:[/QUOTE]
Lilboo, feel free to make the trip to CA. I've got a big apartment and a spare bedroom. We'll have big fabulous Wii Fit parties.
 
[quote name='lilboo']This whole process needs to hurry the fuck up because I got a tuxedo with a 2 foot tread and a rockin pair of stillettos. I just want to throw a manly bouqet and get presents from my family

Oh yes honey, I went there :nottalking:[/quote]

Hey I've got a free weekend, let's make a date to tie the knot oh, say.. saturday? It'll be fabulous!

Hoorah California. Here's hoping the rest of the country follows suit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Christ, listening to that pro wrestler Michael Savage on the radio today, frothing at the mouth (not like he knows any other way), he is quite clearly motivated by vitriol against homosexuals and desires to see them classified as second-tier Americans, with fewer rights and liberties that you or I. So while you may have some noble keep-the-government-out-of-our-marriages viewpoint, I do not believe for a moment that those voting to oppress gays have the same noble motives.[/quote]

Off topic, but speaking of that fucking insane despot Savage, I took a trip over to his ghastly website- I haven't visited it in years but it's still blaring the same old horseshit. Anyway, this caught my attention:

thosshirtslz9.jpg


I'd rather be waterboarding? Are they fucking crazy?

Rhetorical question, I know. Good on California, here's hoping the rest of the country follows suit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']States should be able to have their governments treat marriage the way they want. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional under California's constitution. Therefore, if California wants to not recognize gay marriages, they will need to change their constitution.

I have no problem with the court's ruling, assuming it is correct from a legal standpoint (I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the California state constitution). "They overturned the will of the people" is not what I would consider a reasonable argument. If the will of the people is expressed through an enacted law and that law is shown to violate the constitution, absolutely the courts should strike it down. In other words, I fully support Marbury v Madison as precedent.[/quote]

This is the best argument I've heard so far for what happened. It's given me something to think about.
Myke - I do wonder why you use the term "white heterosexual" in your posts, since this issue has nothing at all to do with race. It is my understanding that in most states blacks voted more overwhelmingly for gay marriage bans than whites, so especially considering this I'm very curious as to why you attempt to bring race into an equation where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...
You should know well by now that every trivial matter on earth, in Mykes mind, comes down to white stereotypes and minority oppression. ;)

You focus on and study something long enough, you'll see it in everything.

[quote name='dmaul1114']

It's better if straights can have marriage and gays can have "civil unions" with the same legal rights. But it's still demeaning since they have to have something different. If gays get civil unions, guess we should have only let blacks have "domestic partnerships" or something after slavery since the majority of the people at the time didn't want them treated as equals either.
[/QUOTE]

How is it demeaning if it was voted by the people that the meaning of the word meant opposite sex only?

If I get together a few thousand hetero sexual couples and march through the streets with signs protesting animal cruelty, could I call that a gay pride parade? No, because we aren't gay, and we aren't marching for gay rights - which is the DEFINITION of a gay pride parade. I wouldn't feel that it's demeaning if people laughed at us for calling it a gay pride parade. That's silly.
 
[quote name='Hex']

I'd rather be waterboarding? Are they fucking crazy?
[/QUOTE]

It pains me to have to point this out to you, but the shirt isn't advocating water boarding so much as It's making fun of the fact that a certain political leaning is far more obsessed with the three terrorists that were waterboarded in the pat 8 years than they are with many other more important issues.

It's goal is to incite the response you just had from people like you.

It is a dumb shirt though, I'll admit.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Mykevermin,

Here is a hypothetical I've been brewing on for a while, I'd like your response to.

Let's say a man is born white. But from a young age he claims to always feel black. He grows up only associating with "black culture" and wants nothing more than to be black. When he turns 18 he saves up all his money and buys all the surgical procedures currently available to him to make him as black as possible.

Would you say he has rights to have the government classify him as a black man? Does he have rights to apply for grants, scholarships, and partake of any AA type programs? Does he have a right to consider himself black on any paperwork?

How would you deal with a person like this? Or would you not consider it a legitimate, since it isn't common enough?

And before you ask, yes it's a serious question.[/QUOTE]

Race is a social classification more than a biological one. Much more. It actually (IMO) depends on how people treat him far more than how he labels himself (e.g., Barack Obama and the never-gonna-be-called-white-yet-he's-always-called-black-though-he's-equally-both thing he suffers with).

I don't know if I agree with your "Soul Man" scenario, but based on how he identifies himself, that information is too limited to make any judgment on. I won't say absolutely yes or no one way or the other, for what that's worth.

[quote name='Hex']
thosshirtslz9.jpg


I'd rather be waterboarding? Are they fucking crazy?[/QUOTE]

Well, sure. If you scour the vs forum, I put up a link to a Georgia bar that is selling t-shirts that say "Obama in 2008" with a picture of Curious George on it. But what struck me the most about the article is a quote from a patron of the bar (which has a reputation as being somewhat controversial and ultra-conservative (not necessarily similar things at all). He said something to the effect of "it's refreshing to be able to go somewhere where I don't have to watch what I say for fear of offending someone."

That stuck with me, and came back to me when seeing the "I'd rather be waterboarding" shirt. It's a fascinating duality amongst conservatives: the simultaneous suppression of and exasperation for talk of any kind of inequality or imperfections inherent in the US as a concept, governmentally or socially (i.e., any lazy-ass black is lying or trying to take me for a mark when they talk about discrimination or inequality in the US), coupled with another portion of their lives where they breathe a sigh of relief to find a place where they can *enact those very forms of discrimination*, not in a covert fashion, but to be able to sit down, unbuckle your belt, pop the church key on a tall, cold Coors, and swap $$$$er jokes.

It's quite telling that the very people who poo-poo inequality in the US are the same people who are thrilled to have a location where they can enact it overtly (which of course implies willful suppression or covert enaction outside of those venues - a concept that irrefutably demonstrates how much "-isms" still harm minorities in society.

elprincipe, you're quite right about black votes and religiosity (man, I was livid to see Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth promoting the hateful right-wing anti-gay legislation, all TWO pieces of them, in Ohio in 2004; you'd think Shuttlesworth has some idea of what oppression looks, smells, tastes, and feels like). Nevertheless, it's not voting against it that I'm talking about here: its the indifference to the subjugation of a group of US citizens as second-class and not deserving of the same rights as everyone else. I generalize when I say 'white heterosexual,' but they are more prone, undoubtedly, to live in a privileged world where they do not fear having any of their rights taken away by vote: they are the majority. There is nothing to be afraid of.
 
[size=+2]Actually[/size], the Gay Pride Parade ISN'T a march for civil rights.
It's about being gay and being OK and HAPPY..(PROUD) with yourself and who you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top