Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Gadawg73]

We are in 2 shooting wars, education is underfunded, the economy has tanked, folks' houses are worth 1/2 what their mortgages are, unemployment is terrible, other countries are going bankrupt, the deficit is massive, gas is almost $4 a gallon and folk are worried about gays getting married.
But no, those issues need to take the back burner for the most important issue of the day: 2 people that love and are committed to each other want to get married and we just can not have that as all of society will fail if we allow it.
What a horrible thought as that kept me up all night last night. The devestating effect that allowing 2 consenting adults that love each other to marry and how that would negatively affect my marriage of 35 years.
I have seen numerous politicians quit working on all of those non issues of the day such as the wars and take time to work on this most pressing issue of the day, stopping gay marriage and passing a Constitutional Amendment to prevent it.
We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights to tell a certain group of people what they can not do INSTEAD OF TELLING THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO which was the purpose of constitutional rights in the first place.
We do not need to end the wars, lower the deficit, raise employment, find better and cheaper forms of energy, receive better education for our citizens, solve the housing crisis or any of that. What we need is a law to stop gay folk from getting married and the rest solves itself overnight.
Anyone that favors banning gay marriage is beyond stupid.

 

[Dragon]

Gays have always had the right to marry. Just not the same sex. I can't marry a dude either so we have equal rights already.

you know... i really can't stand when people make that argument... it's so dishonest.

the same argument would have applied pre-loving v virginia to inter-racial couples.

An even better parallel would be, "You can marry, but only someone that you find completely unattractive, so that the idea of sex with them makes you puke."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays have always had the right to marry. Just not the same sex. I can't marry a dude either so we have equal rights already.

you know... i really can't stand when people make that argument... it's so dishonest.

the same argument would have applied pre-loving v virginia to inter-racial couples.

An even better parallel would be, "You can marry, but only someone that you find completely unattractive, so that the idea of sex with them makes you puke."

I really don't think that those that oppose equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples really realize how dumb that turn of phrase sounds and how little the younger people actually buy into it. One reason the younger demographic is one of the major supporting groups as opposed to the over 65 demographic which is one of the major opposing groups.

A desperate talking point that rings hollow instead of a clear tone when the bell is struck.


>>>>

 

[jillian]

There are no accidental births from homosexual relationships. Two lesbians or two gay men will NOT have an unplanned pregnancy.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

Actually, it would be a good thing, because then there would be more couples available and willing to either adopt, or volunteer as foster parents.

Trust me...........as a child who went through the system, a loving gay couple is much preferable to a hateful hetero couple. Trust me...........my mother was beaten on a regular basis (as was I because I had to defend her, she was my mother), and I've seen lots of really irregular behavior between hetero couples.

However.............................

For 2 years, I rented a room from a lesbian couple who had been together for around 8 or 9 years (longer than most hetero couples btw), and one of the women had a daughter who was pretty open minded as well as had boyfriends and guys she was interested in.

She was a pretty decent kid..........good grades, decent outlook on life and open minded enough to listen to the opinions of others.

It's not so much an issue as to whether or not it's a man/woman couple and not a same sex/same sex couple, it's a question of how well they operate together.

The foster family that I was part of for 4 years? Messed up as a soup sandwich, which is why I ran away at 16 to go back to my Grandparents.

yep.

some people let their own prejudices get in the way of making rational assessments about issues like this.

 

[jillian]

Gays have always had the right to marry. Just not the same sex. I can't marry a dude either so we have equal rights already.

you know... i really can't stand when people make that argument... it's so dishonest.

the same argument would have applied pre-loving v virginia to inter-racial couples.

The racists tried the same argument. They argued that it wasn't discrimination because it applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and LockeJaw will be too.

anyone who pretends that because someone can marry someone they have no interest in and no attraction to, to satisfy someone else's religious view is already wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


I love threads like this where members of the left and members of the right who really respect the ideas of smaller government and liberties and freedom (when no compelling government reason otherwise exists) to support equality for all. That we can come together and argue against discrimination and social authoritarianism.




Then there are people like High_Gravity, who is someone I have no clue on where he stands because for the last couple of weeks I haven't been able to get past the Irish Beer Maiden and the Olde English beer chugger with a great rack to the point where I've actually read his posts.

>>>>

 

[Listening]

you know... i really can't stand when people make that argument... it's so dishonest.

the same argument would have applied pre-loving v virginia to inter-racial couples.

The racists tried the same argument. They argued that it wasn't discrimination because it applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and LockeJaw will be too.

anyone who pretends that because someone can marry someone they have no interest in and no attraction to, to satisfy someone else's religious view is already wrong.

Regardless of the subject......

If someone percieves something as a threat (regardless of why), they have a right to fight it according to civil procedure.

There is no right or wrong.

There is what there is and what it is not.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Ya gotta wonder, if prop 8 had passed in the election and was being ran through the courts as unconstitutional, just how important voters rights would be to gay marriage proponents right now. Seemingly, they mean nothing at the moment...just sayin..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ya gotta wonder, if prop 8 had passed in the election and was being ran through the courts as unconstitutional, just how important voters rights would be to gay marriage proponents right now. Seemingly, they mean nothing at the moment...just sayin..

Personally (again this is just MHO), I think the demonstrations and the legal challenge to Pro 8 was a tactical mistake looking at the short term instead of taking the long view.

Prop 22 (Statutory Law) passed in 2000 with something like a 23% margin of victory. Prop 8 (Constitutional change) in 2008 barely squeaked by so that a shift on only 3% would have changed the outcome.

Given the trend line of the shift in support for Same-sex Civil Marriage, supporters would have been much better off (IMHO) to tell the protesters to cool their jets and to accept the vote with humility. Then start working on a repeal effort (50+1% to pass, means it only takes 50+1% to repeal also). If they had done that then the repeal effort would have been ripe for a shot this year. Given the that polling has continue to shift into the "more support" column two things would have happened:

1. Prop 8 would have been gone.

2. Supporters of gender based marriage discrimination would have been handed a defeat at the polls.​

The value of #2 from a political and momentum standpoint would be much more valuable then a narrowly tailored Court decision which strikes Prop 8 but only impacts California (which is where I think the courts will go). The odds (IMHO) that the SCOTUS is going to issue a sweeping ruling applicable across all 50-states is unlikely. By the time of Loving v. Virginia, I believe the number of state still supporting miscegenation laws was down to 18. Since there only a handful of state currently allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage, I think it will be some years before the SCOTUS will take up a national case.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ya gotta wonder, if prop 8 had passed in the election and was being ran through the courts as unconstitutional, just how important voters rights would be to gay marriage proponents right now. Seemingly, they mean nothing at the moment...just sayin..

Personally (again this is just MHO), I think the demonstrations and the legal challenge to Pro 8 was a tactical mistake looking at the short term instead of taking the long view.

Prop 22 (Statutory Law) passed in 2000 with something like a 23% margin of victory. Prop 8 (Constitutional change) in 2008 barely squeaked by so that a shift on only 3% would have changed the outcome.

Given the trend line of the shift in support for Same-sex Civil Marriage, supporters would have been much better off (IMHO) to tell the protesters to cool their jets and to accept the vote with humility. Then start working on a repeal effort (50+1% to pass, means it only takes 50+1% to repeal also). If they had done that then the repeal effort would have been ripe for a shot this year. Given the that polling has continue to shift into the "more support" column two things would have happened:

1. Prop 8 would have been gone.

2. Supporters of gender based marriage discrimination would have been handed a defeat at the polls.​

The value of #2 from a political and momentum standpoint would be much more valuable then a narrowly tailored Court decision which strikes Prop 8 but only impacts California (which is where I think the courts will go). The odds (IMHO) that the SCOTUS is going to issue a sweeping ruling applicable across all 50-states is unlikely. By the time of Loving v. Virginia, I believe the number of state still supporting miscegenation laws was down to 18. Since there only a handful of state currently allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage, I think it will be some years before the SCOTUS will take up a national case.


>>>>

A well-reasoned and stated political analysis.

But this is a matter of law, not politics – and although the law will forever be polluted by politics, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that this is a 14th Amendment equal protection issue, where a Constitutional right delayed is a right denied, to the detriment of us all.

We are subject only to the rule of law, not men; one’s rights are not determined by majority rule. What the voters ‘want’ is irrelevant – the State of California may not deem a class of persons – citizens of that state – a stranger to its laws.

 

[Seawytch]

We are subject only to the rule of law, not men; one’s rights are not determined by majority rule. What the voters ‘want’ is irrelevant – the State of California may not deem a class of persons – citizens of that state – a stranger to its laws.

Or take away rights already granted.

 

[Peach]

We are subject only to the rule of law, not men; one’s rights are not determined by majority rule. What the voters ‘want’ is irrelevant – the State of California may not deem a class of persons – citizens of that state – a stranger to its laws.

BINGO! And the basis for these laws can be only be grounded in religious beleifs. Once again, no one is forced to attend the weddings, send gifts, have the married couples in their homes, or otherwise be impacted by the marriages.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or take away rights already granted.

Which is interesting when you consider the fact that states shouldn’t need to pass laws allowing same-sex couples access to marriage, either; as that right already exists.

 

[Peach]

Or take away rights already granted.

Which is interesting when you consider the fact that states shouldn’t need to pass laws allowing same-sex couples access to marriage, either; as that right already exists.

Look Florida had a statute that banned gay Floridians from the privilege to ADOPT, until 2010, solely because they WERE gay. How clerk of courts in most states will issue marriage licenses to gay Americans?

 

[mudwhistle]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

Nothing like taking a big steaming crap all over the will of the people.

But I don't care ether way. If it'll get them to STFU then let them suffer the same pain straight folks do.

 

[bodecea]

Ya gotta wonder, if prop 8 had passed in the election and was being ran through the courts as unconstitutional, just how important voters rights would be to gay marriage proponents right now. Seemingly, they mean nothing at the moment...just sayin..

You think voters rights include voting on civil rights?

 

[Peach]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

Nothing like taking a big steaming crap all over the will of the people.

But I don't care ether way. If it'll get them to STFU then let them suffer the same pain straight folks do.

Watch TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, then explain why the "will of the people" should impact Constitutional rights, and why legal rights should be denied to certain arbitrarily defined "groups".