Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

[Missourian]

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses. [1]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states.

Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

Then in 2000 prop 22 was initiated as a California statute and in 2007 prop 8 was initiated as a constitutional amendment to reinforce that statute in "defense of marriage". In 2008 the California supreme court stepped in and deemed the prop 22 statute unconstitutional, but in 2009 the California ballot initiative process continued anyway and prop 8 passed, thus creating an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between "one man, one woman" which had been established by the prop 22 statute. Now the state supreme court will review the constitutionality once again.

Make no mistake, the "defenders of marriage" are the ones who are going out of their way to make laws in California. The religious zealots felt so threatened by the domestic partnership registry that they went out of their way to enact legislation to discriminate against same sex couples. It is a serious and potentially dangerous legal precedent to amend the constitution by ballot initiative and they are using emotion to slip such religious discrimination right past you.

Again respectfully...prop 8 has nothing to do with domestic partnership or civil unions or anything else except marriage. Fourteen word that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman...nothing more.

Edit - The point of my previous post was that domestic partnerships as well as civil unions are still available to homosexual couples.

 

[Valerie]

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses. [1]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states.

Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

Then in 2000 prop 22 was initiated as a California statute and in 2007 prop 8 was initiated as a constitutional amendment to reinforce that statute in "defense of marriage". In 2008 the California supreme court stepped in and deemed the prop 22 statute unconstitutional, but in 2009 the California ballot initiative process continued anyway and prop 8 passed, thus creating an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between "one man, one woman" which had been established by the prop 22 statute. Now the state supreme court will review the constitutionality once again.

Make no mistake, the "defenders of marriage" are the ones who are going out of their way to make laws in California. The religious zealots felt so threatened by the domestic partnership registry that they went out of their way to enact legislation to discriminate against same sex couples. It is a serious and potentially dangerous legal precedent to amend the constitution by ballot initiative and they are using emotion to slip such religious discrimination right past you.

Again respectfully...prop 8 has nothing to do with domestic partnership or civil unions or anything else except marriage. Fourteen word that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman...nothing more.

For what purpose do you think they had to go out of their way to define it by constitutional amendment then?

California Domestic Partnership legal registry program enjoyed broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court.

 

[Missourian]

Then in 2000 prop 22 was initiated as a California statute and in 2007 prop 8 was initiated as a constitutional amendment to reinforce that statute in "defense of marriage". In 2008 the California supreme court stepped in and deemed the prop 22 statute unconstitutional, but in 2009 the California ballot initiative process continued anyway and prop 8 passed, thus creating an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between "one man, one woman" which had been established by the prop 22 statute. Now the state supreme court will review the constitutionality once again.

Make no mistake, the "defenders of marriage" are the ones who are going out of their way to make laws in California. The religious zealots felt so threatened by the domestic partnership registry that they went out of their way to enact legislation to discriminate against same sex couples. It is a serious and potentially dangerous legal precedent to amend the constitution by ballot initiative and they are using emotion to slip such religious discrimination right past you.

Again respectfully...prop 8 has nothing to do with domestic partnership or civil unions or anything else except marriage. Fourteen word that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman...nothing more.

For what purpose do you think they had to go out of their way to define it by constitutional amendment then?

Uh...to keep marriage a union between a man and a woman, as is has always been in the United States, by the will of the people both legislatively and now by statewide direct voting. The citizens of California have spoken.

California Domestic Partnership legal registry program enjoyed broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court.

[/QUOTE]

There are groups opposed to nearly everything. The point is domestic partnerships are not affected by prop 8.

 

[Valerie]

Again respectfully...prop 8 has nothing to do with domestic partnership or civil unions or anything else except marriage. Fourteen word that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman...nothing more.

For what purpose do you think they had to go out of their way to define it by constitutional amendment then?

Uh...to keep marriage a union between a man and a woman, as is has always been in the United States, by the will of the people both legislatively and now by statewide direct voting. The citizens of California have spoken.

California Domestic Partnership legal registry program enjoyed broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court.

There are groups opposed to nearly everything. The point is domestic partnerships are not affected by prop 8.[/QUOTE]

You can pretend this legislation is unrelated and inconsequential to domestic partnership all you want, the fact remains that the legal precedent of amending the constitution in this manner has serious and potentially dangerous consequences.

Prior to the initiation of the prop 22 statute the "marriage defenders" were fighting against the expansion of rights under the Domestic Partnership registry. They got their statute by ballot initiative, but that wasn't enough. They initiated an amendment to the constitution via prop 8 based on the exact language of the prop 22 statute.

After the supreme court deemed prop 22 unconstitutional, two months later they also ruled that prop 8 should remain on the ballot and now that it has passed, a new petition is underway to undo it and the constitutionality is currently under review.

on July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment.[18] As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity.[19] The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.[20]

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I respectfully disagree with you Val. The union of a man and a woman has been the foundation of marriage since it's inception lost to the mist of prehistory and has been the law of the land in the United States since our founding. We are not attempting to change anything. We are defending what marriage already is and has always been...a union of man and woman.

And it has been proven in the ballot box that even in California, the majority agrees.

These aren't legit arguments, though. First you appeal to tradition, and then you appeal to the majority.

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I want to know is who would actually be harmed by homosexual marriage? Definitions don't have feelings. Would your marriage be destroyed if gay people could get married?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]YouTube - It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)[/ame]

 

[Gunny]

I respectfully disagree with you Val. The union of a man and a woman has been the foundation of marriage since it's inception lost to the mist of prehistory and has been the law of the land in the United States since our founding. We are not attempting to change anything. We are defending what marriage already is and has always been...a union of man and woman.

And it has been proven in the ballot box that even in California, the majority agrees.

These aren't legit arguments, though. First you appeal to tradition, and then you appeal to the majority.

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I want to know is who would actually be harmed by homosexual marriage? Definitions don't have feelings. Would your marriage be destroyed if gay people could get married?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]YouTube - It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)[/ame]

Both of which ARE legit arguments. The "Appeal to this or that", appeals to literalism are just another means of deflection in a pretty package. One man's excuse is another man's reason.

Just games of semantics instead of honest discussion.

If you want to be literal, the people of California voted on a word. If the word means nothing and its tradition can be dismissed with a bogus "appeal to ..." argument, then it isn't a word worth having is it?

However, there remains a billion other words to choose from.

The fact is, gays HAVE TO HAVE the term marriage. They already established that. Why? Because the tradition is legit, and legitimizing their sexual behavior as normal is exactly what they are after.

IIRC, the majority of Americans were against homosexual marriage. The majority of Americans had no problem with homosexual civil unions. It was there for the offering and the fireeaters screwed the one's who would gladly have taken it by demanding all or nothing. They got nothing.

If the argument was TRULY about legal recognition of homosexual unions and not about shoving their agenda down the throats of the majority, they would have accepted the civil union term without a peep.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Both of which ARE legit arguments. The "Appeal to this or that", appeals to literalism are just another means of deflection in a pretty package. One man's excuse is another man's reason.

Deflection? Not really. Saying something is true because the majority says so, or because of tradition, is fallacy. And you cannot determine truth using fallacious reasoning. But I should also note that the other side using fallacious reasoning does not automatically make me correct, as there may be arguments for their side not based upon fallacy that I just haven't encoutered yet.

If you want to be literal, the people of California voted on a word. If the word means nothing and its tradition can be dismissed with a bogus "appeal to ..." argument, then it isn't a word worth having is it?

However, there remains a billion other words to choose from.

The fact is, gays HAVE TO HAVE the term marriage. They already established that. Why? Because the tradition is legit, and legitimizing their sexual behavior as normal is exactly what they are after.

They aren't trying to be normal. And the "normal way" is not necessarily the only way that we should accept. On what grounds should we not accept abnormal behavior? When it hurts somebody, I suppose.

What they are after is equal legal rights, just as those who wanted interracial marriage were, and many do not believe that having a separate but equal distinction for their type of union would actually give them equal legal rights. Whether that concern is rational or not is up for debate, I suppose.

 

[garyd]

Kitten you are wrong. Even in societies in which Homosexuality was very nearly expected as in, according to some, the Spartan Army of Leonidas, marriage was very definitely considered to be male female partnership whose chief role was to produce Spartan men for the battle field and Spartan women for the begetting of more Spartan men. You really need to get away from the false history and gobbledy-gook being foisted upon the unwary by the pro homosexual crowd.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because the PEOPLE don't want them to.

Seems pretty simple to me. It's called "democracy".

the people didn't want desegregation either. What the majority wants isn't always right!

Ah, this old straw man again. I'm so glad you dumbasses keep trotting this garbage out, totally oblivious to just how much it alienates the black community in general on this subject. By all means, continue shooting your own cause in the foot. I'll continue laughing at you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the people didn't want desegregation either. What the majority wants isn't always right!

It isn't always wrong, either, but it IS democratic.

Racial segregation in no way is comparable to sexual behavior. One is genetic. The other is behavior.

They have not proven or disproved that homosexuality is not genetics!

Doesn't really matter if it is or not. Participating in homosexual acts is a behavior. Being black isn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong." George Bernard Shaw

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. " Thomas Jefferson

Shaw is wrong.

Jefferson does not support your argument.

Next?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime,
abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest
breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre
Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it oppression, so he STILL doesn't support your argument. Get over your martyr complex.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority." Edmund Burke

Which doen't mean that everything the majority does qualifies. Being capable of something and actually doing it are two different things. Obviously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The people don't want it, so screw them! We'll get the judges to force them to accept it!

You mean kind of like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s? I wonder if black people would be equal today if they had allowed Alabama to vote on it....

Same old straw man argument, coupled with an "I don't know jack shit about government and how it works" argument.

See, the Civil Rights acts were laws, passed legally by the duly-elected (meaning they were voted on) representatives of the people. So they qualify as the will of the people as much as Prop 8 does, since if the people didn't like what their representatives did, they had the power to replace them with people who would reverse it. They weren't illegitimately and undemocratically imposed on the people by judges.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime,
abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest
breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre
Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

Problem with your argument is no one is being oppressed.

And I don't need to quote dead men to make my argument. Our current society is a DIRECT reflection of allowing the minority to dictate the laws to the majority.

Again - I refer to civil rights movements in the past. You know - women were minorities back in the early 20th century. African Americans are still minorities.... and neither of them were being oppressed - they just weren't afforded the same rights as other people... kind of like gays.

Again - who the fuck are we to tell people they can't get married? If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, who the hell am I to say no they can't? Let them go off and be happy. Enough of this bullshit - the only people who don't want gay people to get married are homophobes.

And once again, you make a damned fool of yourself by supporting the illegal imposition of judicial will on the people with a comparison to laws passed democratically. Also, you continue to disingenuously pretend that the issue at hand is "telling people they can't get married". No one is telling anyone anything of the sort. They're merely being told that they can't force others to consider them married. I don't need the agreement and recognition of others to make my marriage exist, and I don't think much of any marriage that DOES require those things to exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again - I refer to civil rights movements in the past. You know - women were minorities back in the early 20th century. African Americans are still minorities.... and neither of them were being oppressed - they just weren't afforded the same rights as other people... kind of like gays.

Again - who the fuck are we to tell people they can't get married? If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, who the hell am I to say no they can't? Let them go off and be happy. Enough of this bullshit - the only people who don't want gay people to get married are homophobes.

Ya who are we to make laws at all? I mean if consenting adults want to do X, how dare the Government make a law about it? You are so stupid as to be beyond ignorant.

We have laws to protect people. You're comparing two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together to some one who wants to harm themselves and do drugs? Do you still call black people *******?

You're saying that all the laws on the books are about people harming themselves and doing drugs?

The laws protect people, you're correct. What they protect are our rights. And the right to decide the structure and framework of society is an important one. If it wasn't, YOU wouldn't be arguing so hard to be allowed to change it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again - I refer to civil rights movements in the past. You know - women were minorities back in the early 20th century. African Americans are still minorities.... and neither of them were being oppressed - they just weren't afforded the same rights as other people... kind of like gays.

Again - who the fuck are we to tell people they can't get married? If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, who the hell am I to say no they can't? Let them go off and be happy. Enough of this bullshit - the only people who don't want gay people to get married are homophobes.

So, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying my brother then?

I don't really care who you marry. It's none of my business. If you go back far enough, Adam & Eve were brother and sister.

They were WHAT?! Man, go look up the word "siblings", because you clearly don't grasp the concept.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It isn't always wrong, either, but it IS democratic.

Racial segregation in no way is comparable to sexual behavior. One is genetic. The other is behavior.

They have not proven or disproved that homosexuality is not genetics!

Doesn't really matter if it is or not. Participating in homosexual acts is a behavior. Being black isn't.

The example of desegregation can call into question the validity of "separate but equal" that would be embodied in having civil unions for gays and marriage for non-gays.

A closer example would be striking down anti-miscegenation laws. As those attempted to prevent state recognition of the "behavior" of interracial marriage. Laws against interracial marriage were no more about race inequality than laws against homosexual marriage are about gender inequality. Both men and women of a specific sexual orientation are harmed by anti-gay marriage laws, just as both Blacks and Whites who wanted to marry the other race were harmed by anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority." Edmund Burke

Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.

"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.

exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states."
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.

I beg your pardon, but we're not talking about the US Constitution here, Mensa Girl. We're talking about the Constitution of the state of California, which DOES, I believe, define marriage. And newsflash: if it didn't before, it does NOW. That was the point of Prop 8, last time I checked.

Try to be aware of the topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The federal government can also prosecute people for marijuana where it is decriminalized, they usually choose not to.

Which destroys your entire reasoning on this having anything to do with the US Supreme Court.

why it shows no state make a law that goes against a federal law. So therefore if the supreme court says that gay marriage is part of our civil rights, California cannot make a law denying that civil right.
Like I said before no where does the constitution define marriage but it does state no state cannot deny privilage or immunities, or life, and liberty.
Think about Roe v Wade, they made it legal because of the 14th amendment, you don't think they can make gay marriage legal because of the same amendment.

If the Supreme Court says that homosexual "marriage" is part of our civil rights, then THEY are in violation of the US Constitution, by your own argument.

And pointing to Roe v. Wade as a shining example of Constitutional law just goes to show how little you know about Constitutional law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gays be able to marry and serve in the army?

It seems ridiculous to me.

As to gays serving in the military, since military units share showers and sleeping quarters, do you not think that the other military personel have a right not to be exposed as sexual objects? No one would ever consider having co-ed communal showers, so why would anyone think that having gay and straight men share the same shower would be acceptable?

Should they screen for gays at health clubs?? Not trying to be a dick....just askin.

Maybe they should be allowed to, but a health club to which you go voluntarily and where you don't HAVE to shower if you don't care to is a bit different from military service.