pan6467

BTW: I do believe in same sex marriage being protected by law. I just believe the voters have the right to make that decision, not me alone.

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ----------

HEAR, HEAR

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

This is so filled with silly contradictions I am not going to waste time going point by point ("true freedom means accepts others beliefs" but not accepting gay marriage?)

But are you really arguing that people should not be allowed to bring their case in front of a federal court to determine the constitutionality of the issue? That going to court to debate a law's constitutionality is "self righteous bullshit?"

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

This country also has a system of federal courts that can determine the constitutionality of a law, and people have rights to question the constitutionality of laws in front of these courts. I really don't get people who claim that those affected should have no right to question the law in court.

By the way, gay marriage was first deemed legal by the Maine legislature, then overturned by vote, so the people elsewhere voted in people who would carry their wishes. What is the true "people"?

Martian

Except that in your country, there's also a Constitution that provides the basis for those laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that every law passed must be in accordance with both the federal and the relevant state Constitution.

The Supreme Court of California found that Proposition 8 did not violate the state Constitution, but that says nothing of the federal one.

The argument as I understand it is based on the fourteenth amendment; specifically, this clause:

Emphasis, of course, mine.

It could arguably be said that Propisition 8 is abridging the privileges of homosexuals by denying them the right to marry.

Some folks seem to think this is a frivolous challenge, akin to a temper tantrum. I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me based on the above quote that there is definitely a case to be made. Whether that case holds water will be for the Supreme Court to decide.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Derwood

"the will of the people" happened in California? More like "the will of 52% of the people"

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dippin

to be a bit more precise: "the will of 52% of the people that showed up to vote"

Wes Mantooth

The will of the people simply can't be your only basis when voting on laws. Essentially that position holds that there should be no checks and balances in place to correct mistakes, address constitutional issues or offer any level of protection to a persecuted class, individual or minority group. That's simply outright tyranny. Taking prop 8 to federal court ensures an examination of the constitution and makes sure that nobodies rights were violated in the process. If the court finds no protection for gay marriage then prop 8 will not only stand but we will have a federal precedent to follow when the question comes up again in another state. Again checks and balances.

Should homosexuals have no legal recourse to challenge such an arbitrary and quite frankly cruel law because a large group of people say so? At what point does the will of the people cross the line? Should the people have a blank check to reinstate slavery? Decide who gets to vote? Which religions should be banned? At some point a voice of reason and authority has to intercede and protect the rights of the people no matter how small the group or large the majority. How can any of us have real freedom otherwise?

__________________

Charlatan

When I stated that the US is a country of LAW what I mean is that the Constitutions (State and Federal) are there to protect ALL and not just the majority or the will of one person. Because the US is a country of LAW there is not fear that a majority of people can elect a dictatorship into power or that, as was used as an example above, a majority of people can get together and decide that Pan should be executed (sure they can but it would be illegal).

The Laws survive while generations pass and different leaders come and go.

There is a reason why you have the many branches of government that you do and there is a reason that it takes quite a bit to alter the Constitution that is the foundation of those institutions.

Any municipality or state can enact a law but if it contradicts the Constitution, it can be struck down.

I really hope you can see the distinction that I am trying to make here.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cimarron29414

Only on Tilted Politics could we all agree on an issue and still argue.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

"who were whipped into a frenzy by religious social-right-wingers spending tons of bux, the majority of it funneled in from out of state."

Anyone who actually thinks that the results of the Prop 8 vote reflects the will of the majority of Californians is nuts. And that's a WHOLE other issue from the issue of the constitutionality of the proposition.

I don't know whether Prop 8 is a violation of the federal Constitution. That's not my call. But it's a valid legal challenge to the thing, and stomping around saying "hurr hurr will of the people" is just absurd.

rahl

So now there was a voter/govn't/religious conspiracy that caused prop 8 to pass.

Look folks, Laws get passed in this country all the time that alot of people don't agree with. But the majority do. This govn't may have been set up to try to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but it still happens. Case in point, California Prop 8

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

I don't think that is what he said, and I think you know that.

But let me ask you again: so you think people shouldn't even have the right to question the constitutionality of the law in court? Referendums are above the courts?

rahl

No, the minority can question the legality of a law in the courts if they wish. I was stating my opinion that I don't think the law will be declared unconstitutional. Since I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor to my knowledge are any of you on this board, that is all any of us can do, simply state our opinions.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Jinn

I must be looking at it from a different angle than you, because I think it doesn't take much of a Constitutional scholar to notice the inherent contradiction between a Constition which says "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and a state law which denies 1,138 rights to some of its citizens on the basis of their sexuality. Hardly sounds like 'equal protection.'

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pan6467

No, I believe if the voters vote for something unconstitutional it should be challenged.

But I asked on what grounds, what part of the Constitution does this law passed by voters break.... and there was no reply.

I don't see ANYONE on here arguing where it breaks the Constitution. I do however, see people calling voters names, talking about voters ignorance and so on.

In order for something to be "unconstitutional" it has to break a law or laws in the Constitution... no one has yet told me what law or laws it breaks. Thus, until that happens this is nothing more than people crying and wanting their way.

As for "only 52% voted for it"...... ummm how many states did Obama or McCain win by a margin less? How many laws have been passed by the same or lesser margin in Congress.

The big question is if you agreed with this bill and someone started calling the voters names or started stating support for it to be settled in courts even though they have no clue and couldn't tell you what basis they have to fight the law's constitutionality..... what would you say?

So either the voters are always stupid or they aren't which is it? Can't have it both ways. The system we have is a system of faults but it is the best system that has ever existed. Whether the majority agrees with your "views" or not.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Now, we have a true argument.

What rights does it violate? Don't need to give me all 1,138... tell me 5 rights that it violates, where people are not treated with equal protection.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

Where did anyone say the voters are stupid? And last I checked, a president isn't elected forever and is still bound by the constitution, whereas an amendment to a state's constitution can be there forever, unless someone challenges it's constitutionality.

As far as you not seeing "anyone" arguing where it breaks the constitution, I refer you to posts

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2747603 (where the basis of the lawsuit is explained)

and

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2748088

where the whole thing is spelled out in detail.

As to what rights are being denied, this post has several of them:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2747741

pan6467

Wrong, if it is an amendment it becomes part of the constitution and thus cannot be challenged. Laws, edicts, props, whatever you wish to call them that are not amendments, maybe challenged if they break the constitution. OR they can be put on the ballots and voted to be changed.

ONLY AN AMENDMENT THAT REPEALS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION CAN CHANGE SAID AMENDMENT (this is why the 18th amendment (prohibition) had to have the 21st amendment (repeals prohibition)... otherwise prohibition would have remained forever.

I se no one here talking about those. It's easy to say "read this what some other guy wrote".

OK

So now YOU tell me what you believe. No one here has truly done that yet.

My first post here I quoted badmouthing the electorate.... may not have been you but it has been done here more than anyone standing up and giving why they believe the bill is unconstitutional and what rights it breaks.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

You do understand that an amendment to a STATE's constitution still has to comply with the FEDERAL constitution, right? And that prop 8 is being challenged in federal court because of that, right?

You seem unable to grasp this. Whether or not the courts will agree with the challenge is another issue, but you seem unable to understand that state laws must be in accordance to the limits set by the federal constitution. As such, the people bringing forth this challenge are entirely within their rights to challenge a state's amendment.

timalkin

..

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

Baraka_Guru

But what about the law preventing a homosexual from marrying someone of their sexual orientation?

You're basically saying they will be treated equally but only if they act against their sexual orientation. How is that being treated equally?

You don't see a problem with that?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

this is not true and has not been true since slaughterhouse.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

timalkin

..

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

ratbastid

Voters ARE ignorant. Panicky, easily swayed by the loudest and glossiest-produced voice, prone to misinterpretation and irrational emotional reaction. Just look at what happened with Prop 8. Can you honestly tell me you believe that the outcome of that vote reflects the majority view of the State of California?

Your precious founders knew this, which is why we're a representative democracy.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." --Men In Black

Baraka_Guru

Okay, this only works when you look only at gender/sex. This is a question of sexual orientation. In order for a heterosexual couple to marry each other in California, they simply have to go through the steps: get a license, a member of the clergy/justice of the peace, etc., etc. But in order for a homosexual couple to marry in California, they.... oh wait....they can't marry each other.

In this issue, not all men and all women are being treated equally. Homosexual men and women are legally barred from marrying their partners. That is not equal treatment.

"You can marry....if you're not gay....or if you find someone straight enough to go along with you...."

How is that equal again?

And what you say about marriage being only between a man and a woman is a matter of opinion, apparently....which is part of the reason why we're here.

There are many perfectly married homosexual couples already.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

You don't see a problem with your first sentence? If so, why not?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

timalkin

..

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

Wes Mantooth

But that's the issue at hand here timalkin. Weather or not it is legal or even constitutional for the state or federal govt to decide what marriage is, how its defined or who it applies to. Its easy to say "Gay people can get married...as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex" but that simply doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, which is why its being examined to the point that it is today.

If two American citizens, both adults want to enter into the contract of marriage and do so willingly should the govt be able to deny them that based on nothing more then the definition of a word or old traditions? Or if no other compelling reason can be cited does the govt have a responsibility to ensure its citizens are allowed to pursue marriage (and ultimately decisions about their own lives) on their own terms?

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Why is a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex even a consideration? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? It's okay for a man to be gay, but it's not okay for a gay man to marry his partner. But it's totally cool if he chooses to marry a woman instead. Everything is fine.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing against the idea that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman, and that laws prohibiting the marriage of homosexual couples is at the very least a violation of civil rights.

Both. It's an opinion that marriage only happens between a man and a woman. There is a law in California stating that homosexual marriages cannot be performed. I would prefer to challenge this than simply accept it as law.

Okay, let's stop fucking around: You think marriage is the exclusive realm of a man being bound to a woman and vice versa. Fine. But this is where the problem is. People disagree with you and now the constitutionality of Prop 8 is being challenged on the basis that homosexual couples aren't given equal treatment. Bottom line: they can't marry the person they love just like heterosexual couples can. That's not equal treatment.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

No, I have every bit of understanding of US and state constitutional law in this aspect.

The question put forth is why do YOU believe it to be unconstitutional? I don't want links or quotes or plagarism... I want YOUR opinion on the argument.

I truly don't know if it is or not. But until the courts rule the people voted for it. And I, PERSONALLY, believe that instead of all this fighting people are doing for it to be ruled "unconstitutional" would be better served educating and working on changing voters opinions so that if ruled "constitutional" you may have a chance with voters repealing it.

There are enough lawyers fighting it. Your voice isn't going to change anything in court. Calling voters ignorant and attacking them for voting for it, will not change their minds IF you have to put a repeal on the ballot. If anything, that will result in the complete opposite of what you want.

This is what I have been saying all along.... if that sounds so bad to you.... then I don't know what to tell you. It's going to take hard work and true belief to change voters opinions, especially if you talk down to them.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

To this, I say attitudes like that will not win you the votes you need.

And if you believe that then Obama's election was not of thebest man.

OR are these "ignorant" voters only ignorant when you disagree with them?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

timalkin

..

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

pan6467

First, who says it is not equal treatment and why? The US Supreme Court has yet to decide until then it is not in violation of the constitution. No matter how much you may disagree.

A vast majority of religions, (and some people are very fanatical about their religion), state it is wrong for same sex marriages. You can yell separation of Church and State... but churches/synagogues/mosques/temples will strongly suggest to their masses how to vote on certain issues. (Just as some organizations such as the NAACP, Unions, etc. will do the same.)

So, YOUR opinion that it is a "right" is opposite of say a Catholic who believes it is not a "right".

Until, the court rules.... in California, by popular vote... it is not a right protected by the State Constitution or the US and the California Supreme Court upheld the people's vote. Will the US Supreme Court? No one yet knows.... but in case the uphold that vote, I'd be out there educating the voters and hope for that 4% swing.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

And you seem to be approaching this from an illogical point of view. Of course proof of love isn't required for a marriage license, but nice red herring. The point I was trying to make is that homosexual couples aren't treated equally because they can't marry their romantic partner. (And, no, proof of romance isn't required for a license either. )

So what does a romantic partnership between homosexual couples have to do with a legal marriage? Is that the question?

No disparity....except homosexuals cannot currently marry their romantic partners. I don't usually like to repeat myself.

Yes, it has been debated elsewhere on the forum, but your wandering wonder is just as ridiculous as ever. Making it legal for homosexuals to marry won't lead to incestuous weddings, etc., etc., and I won't be able to marry the moon, nor you your Tomagatchi.

Actually this brings up a good point: What's at stake is how American society will or will not ultimately legitimize homosexual relationships (i.e. marriage being, for many, the epitome of romantic relationships). Many people still view them as abominations in the eyes of God. Sure, but why did God make them gay then? And I find it particularly interesting that you automatically categorize homosexual relationships along with incest and polyamory via the suggestion that legalizing gay marriage will possibly open the floodgates for all kinds of marriage types. Do you think this is possible based on the act of redefining marriage? Or rejigging it? Well, it seems marriage survived the advent of divorce and annulments. And we didn't see any problems with people trying to make other changes such as allowing men to play tradsies with their wives or maybe finding a way whereby parents could divorce completely from their minor children.....or make their own parents divorce....or their neighbour's parents.... Funny, that.

It's not equal treatment as I just outlined above. Do you think it's equal treatment to allow marriage to couples as long as they aren't gay couples?

There were similar conflicts when it came to the question of divorce.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

No, as I have stated many times, I don't care who marries who, so long as they do not force their way of life upon me. (Arguably, that is what society does to them... but that is society and NOT me as a person.)

The majority of society still seems to frown upon gay marriage. It is NOT something any court in this world will ever change. The ONLY way change will come is to educate. It'll be hard work and you'll have to truly believe in your cause. BUT, should enough people do the hard work, society will eventually overcome it's prejudice. Doesn't mean everyone will, but maybe enough to repeal the law. Maybe enough so that every state will eventually allow it.

It took 100 years to try to overcome racism and society as a whole has. Equal rights laws were passed and eventually, Black America has the same rights as White. Is it a history I am proud of? Not really, but I am proud that we have come this far even though racism exists on BOTH sides. (Look at Chris Rock's latest standup special... he can call the white man "cracker", talk about "fuck you cracker" and get away with it... but a white guy (example Micheal Richards) says something once and it's all over the press. To me that's a racist double standard. But it is acceptable to the majority. Thus, all I can do is share my opinion about it.

True and it took an extremely long time and enough people to stand up and say "it's ok" for the churches to somewhat accept it.

It will be that way like it or not for gay marriage. It was that way racially also.

You cannot change opinions overnight. And it will take far longer and be much harder to change those opinions if you degrade and treat those opposing opinions as less than your own.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Rekna

This sounds familiar. Black men are allowed to marry black women and white men are allowed to marry white women but black men cannot marry white women or visa versa. No rights were being denied there because they could marry their own race.

Charlatan

Pan, I would argue the that when the laws allowing blacks equal rights or the laws allowing divorce (used as examples above) were brought about *before* there was a majority of people supported them. It was the change in the laws that allowed them to become increasingly normal in the eyes of society.

I firmly believe that referenda are a terrible way to enact laws. Representative democracy may be messy but it is much (much!) better than a rule of majority. I can see you understand this in your replies but then you contradict yourself in others.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Wes Mantooth

I agree Charlatan, I would also argue that most of the civil rights advancements we've made in this country were done so against the will of the majority. The Supreme Court was intragel in striking down Jim Crow laws and had to do so as late as the 1970's. It was Lydon Johnson and Congress who were ultimately responsible for ending it which even in 1964 still came under heavy opposition. How long were we to wait?

Lets keep in mind that their was no real constitutional protection against segregation either after all separate but equal still afforded rights to minorities. Congress had to plunge deep into the constitution to justify desegregation and had very little room to stand on how to enforce it. That sounds oddly familiar doesn't it?

I doubt many today would argue the govt acted unfairly against the will of the people by stepping in and ending such a terrible practice. There simply was no way all 50 states were going to get on the same page and remedy this problem. Allowing every state to hold referendums outlawing the practice would have taken generations if they even got around to holding them at all. If not for the Civil Rights Act we'd probably still be dealing with this issue today, robbing our own citizens of their rights and leaving us light years behind most of the world on equal rights.

A Representative Democracy can be pretty nice to have sometimes.

__________________

Derwood

This is a matter of gender AND sexual orientation. It shouldn't be viewed as "A man (gay or straight) can marry a woman (gay or straight), so what's the problem?". It should be viewed as "legal adult A can enter a legally binding, government sanctioned contract with a man, but not with a woman." What other contracts is this true of? What if the government said "A man can sell his home to another man, and a woman can sell her home to another woman, but men can't sell to women or vice versa"? It would be ridiculous and unconstitutional. Why you don't think this applies to a marriage contract is baffling to me

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

rahl

Getting back to the OP. With the conservative leaning justices having the majority, I don't think it's realistic to hope that they overturn this. If this go's to court and it is upheld, it will be a serious blow to the cause for gay marriage. IMO they should continue to put forth ballot initiatives to try to change the law in CA.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

One thing (the legal challenges) doesn't preclude the other (changing it back through ballots).


In fact, given demographic trends and how youth are much more open to gay marriage than older segments of the population, I have no doubt that things will start to turn around soon.

rahl

I understand that but if and when this goes before the Supreme Court and is upheld it will lend wieght and credibility to keeping it outlawed. People will feel justified in having voted against Gay Marriage. By keeping it out of the court system and trying to change it through ballots, IMO people will have a greater chance of swaying popular opinion

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Wes Mantooth

I completely agree, this is going to be a tough fight and their is no gauruntee that prop 8 will be overturned even if there was a liberal leaning court. I still think it needs to be examined however and while a loss may uphold prop 8 it may bring the case even more to the forefront of the nation which in turn may drag Obama and Congress into the fray.

As I understand the Supreme Court could uphold the vote but thats as far as they can go. Other referendums could still overturn as well as a (if I'm remembering my civic properly) a vote by the State Legislature. In my opinion I think this is going to wind up in front of the US Congress who will end up passing a federal law outlining the issue one way or the other.

Anyway great thread all, lots of smart folks here. I enjoyed reading the thread and it was a fun challenge trying to post on the topic. More often then not threads like this turn into a mud slinging mess and it was a joy not to wade through all that.

__________________