Prop 8 constitutional challenge likely to go to U.S. Supreme Court
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1427694/

Two homosexual married couples (one lesbian, one gay) are challenging the constitutionality of the voter-decided Prop 8 resolution in a federal court.

Those on both sides of the issue believe this will be a historic battle.

If this goes through to the U.S. Supreme Court as expected, it could possibly pave the way to the validity of gay marriage across the country.

I think this is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope it gets a Supreme Court decision in favour of Prop 8's unconstitutionality. At the very least, Prop 8 is a civil rights violation.

What do you think?

I in no way support prop 8, I think everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Gay, straight or bi we're all human.

That being said I don't see how a majority vote in the state of California can be considered unconstitutional. The Democratic process was carried out and the will of the people in the state of California was carried out. I'm not sure this will be overturned.

Rahl: the issue is not one of democracy, but of legally protected rights. If Prop 8 is an issue where the tyranny of the majority is ruled a violation of the law, it will be overturned and marriage equality will come back to California.

Still, I'm also very wary about this. I was certain Prop 8 would fail last year, as were most people I know, and we were all shocked.

Surely anything put to a majority vote in the state of California isn't automatically constitutional. There's more to that, isn't there?

I understand but those rights aren't legally protected yet. They should be, but they aren't yet. In order for them to be they need to be voted on. So far the people have voted no.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure any objective reading of the equal protection clause could be considered legal protection of equal rights for all people.

That's not how it works, or all the whites could hurry up and vote that the non-whites get no votes, quick-like, before whites are a minority.

Just because "the people said" doesn't make it NOT a violation of constitutionally protected rights.

Then why is it still illegal?

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

and that's how it was for the first half of this countries life. It wasn't until it was voted on that it changed. All I'm saying is that according to my understanding, Gay marriage won't happen until it is voted on, be it congressional, or state by state.

That'd be a really good question for a Federal judge. If I ever meet a Federal judge, that'll be the first question I ask.

No. We've been a federal representative democracy since our founding. Some states have referendum power written into their STATE constitutions, but any decision arrived at by state referendum still has to comply with the FEDERAL constitution.

If congress passes it (or is it 2/3rds of the states), the President signs in, and the supreme court approves it, then anything can become constitutional nation-wide. But, the voters trump the legislative, unless the voters approved something that is prohibited in the constitution.

You're all mixed up here. The critical piece you've missed is that there is NO SUCH THING as a FEDERAL referendum in the US. Referenda (or "ballot issues" or "initiatives" or "legislative referrals") are available to certain STATES because they're provided for in the constitution of THAT STATE. The states have various mechanisms by which the government (in some cases, state legislatures, in others, the governor) can decide to run some decision as a public referendum item. It's not like the public vote "trumps the legislative". It's more like "the elected officials passed the decision-making buck to people even less qualified to make the decision".

And any legislative action of any STATE (including legislative action delegated to public vote) is still beholden to all federal law, including most centrally the federal Constitution.

So there's no provision for polling the entire nation for federal legislative issues. And polling the public of a state for legislative matters is showing itself to be a pretty iffy matter too, between ratifying Prop 8, and California's Proposition 13, where voters decided to bankrupt their own state because they didn't want to pay taxes.

But to date there is nothing in the federal constitution that allows for gay marriage. So it is left up to the states. To my understanding unless there is a specific bill that grants a Gay marriage the same rights and benefits as a Straight marriage, then it's left up to the individual states to decide.

I'm going to use the 2nd amendmant as an example. The 2nd amendmant grants all citizens the right to bear arms, but some states have restrictions placed on that right. Chicago is an example, you can't own a handgun within the city limits(it may be state wide i'm not entirely sure, but chicago for sure). By the same logic this should be unconstitutional.

/back to gay marriage

It's attitudes like these that keep electing leaders that put us trillions of dollars in debt and lead us into facism.

THE PEOPLE ARE WRONG< FUCK WHAT THE <MASSES WANT, they are stupid, ignorant and don't know what truly is going on.... we need government to lead us to the promised land and we need government to dictate to us all we need to know.

That said, unless Prop 8 violates the US Constitution or California's and cannot be amended to work out those violations..... LET THE PEOPLE'S VOICE BE HEARD!!!!!!

I may not agree or like it but as with the smoking bans, the people have spoken. You want to change it, do it by ballot and have your initiative/prop/amendment put on a ballot and voted on.

IT's like people crying that Ohio passed gambling and now want to legislate and challenge and reverse the vote without giving the people the chance to vote.

This worries me, as the stakes are incredibly high. As a supporter of gay marriage, I fear that a USSC ruling that upholds Prop 8 will effectively end the fight for gay marriage for a long time.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------

Nor is there anything in the federal constitution that allows for straight marriage.

Or an Air Force.

Or interstate highways

Or

Or

Or

¿Who did you vote for in 2008?

Good point. I just don't how it would be unconstitutional to uphold a ballot vote by the people of California.

The reason why the majority of people can have their voices heard today is because of decisions to instill and uphold basic voting rights for women and non-whites. These were people who previously didn't have a "voice." If they only ever listened to the majority of those who did have a voice at that time, women and non-whites today would possibly have no role in any of this.

There are sometimes moral/civil/social problems when you only listen to the majority of those with a voice.

When I was married, I went to a church and made a covenant with God and my wife. I also signed a binding legal contract with the State and my wife. These two things are distinct and mutually exclusive. I am married through God. I am in a legally binding contract through the State. That contract was entered into willingly by two consenting adults. The benefits of that contract ensure that my property will remain with those I choose in the event of my death. That contract ensures that the money I was forced to place in Social Security will go to the person whom I choose. That contract allows me to choose who makes medical decisions when I can't. I paid taxes for all of these benefits and I took advantage of these benefits.

Allow the contract to be expanded such that the two adults get to choose with whom they make that contract - not the State. Eliminate the word "marriage" from this contract's verbiage. None of us are married in the eyes of the State - that is a convenant one makes with God and the State must separate itself from that covenant.

Cimarron, that's a good suggestion, but it's my understanding that many homosexuals aren't merely after the state recognition of their union. Many of them also want to be wed in the presence of God.

It can be argued that the Bible teaches against the practice of divorce. Oddly enough, divorce isn't outlawed in most regions of North America.

Are you suggesting that atheists cant be "married" or those who chose to have a civil ceremony only...w/o a covenant with God?

If a church wanted to marry a gay couple what is stopping them? It seems to me that anyone wanting to stop a church from doing so would be interfering with the freedom of religion.

I agree and would take it a step further; take away the church's ability to legally sign marriage licenses. Make the religious aspect of marriage 100% ceremonial

For Christians, the notion of marriage was created when God joined Adam and Eve. Therefore, for Christians, atheists could not enter into a covenant with God and therefore could not be "married". Since, homosexuals would be creating a union against God's will, they could not be "married" either. Our Bible is unambiguous about homosexuality. I say this without malice, I am simply explaining our belief system. I will expect all my good liberal friends here to scream at the top of their keyboards regarding this statement of Christian fact. I won't be moved and it's not really the point, now is it.

Since I do separate my faith from my State, I recognize that all those who pay taxes (used figuratively) are entitled to the same protections which my taxes pay for and which I enjoy. In short, if I get a say-so as to who gets my stuff and who gets to pull my plug, so should Adam and Adam. Whether I find the act sinful or not has little to do with the fact that there's a huge number of taxpayers who are paying for rights that they don't receive - and that is patently unfair.

Incidentally, I have 5 different gay couples in my life - relatives, neighbors, friends, and coworkers. I have spoken in great depth with each couple about my opinion on all of this. All couples completely understand my position and are extremely thankful that I openly fight with them for their right to unionize. (I consider myself unionized in the eyes of the State, BTW.)

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

The pastors simply serve as a notary to the contract. I have no problem with them signing the "Civil Union" license. My covenant with God is the unbreakable contract, not the piece of paper I signed.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

I agree. If your faith allows for this union, knock yourself out. Mine does not.

If we're going with hyperbole here, I'm going to say that it is attitudes like yours ("the people are always right") that allowed Hilter's rise to power, the Nazi eugenics program, Jim Crowe laws, the opposition ot the women's suffrage movement, and slave ownership.

Recognizing that the majority does not always act in the best interests of the Union or the minority is essential to understanding American democracy. The Supreme Court's position exists precisely to defend against the 'tyranny of the majority', whereby the majority does whatever it wishes without balance. This only works when you're in the majority. When you aren't, it's a terrible thing.

Christians are the majority in America, should the "power of the people" vote be allowed to stand that we become a Christian theocracy? The 'majority' most often acts in its own best interests, not the best interests of the Union or ALL of it's people. The Constitution is a covenant to protect ALL of our people, not just the politically powerful.

Look, not to reducto ad absurdam you or anything, but... Let's say you annoyed enough people in your city that they took a vote and decided to kill you. Would that make your murder legal? Obviously not.

I like how you snuck in that "unless the prop is unconstitutional" disclaimer in there. That's precisely what this law suit claims. Guess what: that's not for you or me to decide. Neither of us are Supreme Court Justices. So. Either contribute something worthwhile to the conversation, or stop talking shit.

Anyone who's still stomping around about the Will of the People just simply doesn't understand the legislative structure of our country. It's that simple. It's not up to the legislature to ensure the laws they pass are constitutional--including laws they delegate to popular vote for decisions on. Those laws, once signed, become law, and then if their constitutionality is questionable, a case testing the law comes before the Supreme Court, where its constitutionality is decided. That's what's happening here. There's no will of the people being contravened here. (Especially considering the travesty that the Prop 8 campaign was--it's pretty clear that the outcome is NOT the will of the majority of Californians, so...)

I'm not certain this is true. All members of legislature swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (U.S. or state). I think that when they knowingly write a law that is clearly unconstitutional they have violated their oath and should be impeached.

As for Prop 8, my understanding is that the people voted a referendum to amend their state constitution - thus making it unconstitutional to have same sex marriages. So, now the Supreme Court must ask whether this change to their state constitution violates the federal constitution. My guess is that SCOTUS will not hear this case and that California will retain the change to their constitution. I don't agree with outlawing homosexual civil unions, but the referendum vote is the way "the people" have every right to change their laws without the use of legislators.

Ideal world "should"s aside, the constitutionality of legislation is really honestly of only theoretical importance to a legislator. What's important to that legislator is how their support of the measure in question will make them look to their constituency. In principle, that's because they're elected to carry out the will of the people. In practice, their constituency includes deep-pocketed concerns like corporations and lobbying groups as well, so... Like the man says: Two things you DON'T want to watch people make are sausages and laws.

Constitutionality of the law is ruled on by the Supreme Court. That's one of the Court's key functions, and the main check on legislative power. I know the checks and balances structure is a little out of favor since our last Unitary Executive did away with it, but it still actually is the law of the land.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

Strictly speaking, I could start a church of Mars and decide to marry whomever I please. I could even decide to only marry homosexuals, and wouldn't that be fun?

Trouble is, those marriages under the current law wouldn't be legally recognized, and thus would confer none of the legal benefits.

If the state got out of the marriage business entirely and adopted a system like common-law partnerships, that would be one thing. Two consenting adults could do whatever they want, and subject to some base requirements (in Canada it's living together in a conjugal relationship for a pre-determined period of time, which varies depending on which government entity you're dealing with) that would be good enough. If they wanted to add marriage through a religious institution, that would be their lookout. This is a system that I think would work, but it doesn't seem terribly likely that it will ever exist; marriage is a deeply rooted institution throughout North America (and the rest of the world, for that matter). So if we're going to continue to use marriage as a legally recognized pairing, then in order for it to be just that status must be available to all couples, regardless of who they are or what their beliefs are. Anything less is a civil rights violation, because it creates two separate classes, which is a prerequisite of systemic abuse or oppression.

As of right now, the United States federal government recognizes marriage as only a union between one man and one woman (Defense of Marriage Act, section 2: "The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman."). Further to that, most of the states fail to recognize any other possible pairing either. So even if a gay couple managed to find a church that would marry them, it wouldn't be valid legally. The current case is set up to challenge Prop 8, and therefore reverse that in California.

What I'm wondering is if Prop 8 is determined to be unconstitutional, would that be grounds to then challenge the Defense of Marriage Act on the same principle? It seems to me that it would, but I am certainly not an expert here.

Never mind this.

We'll have to disagree. People of integrity uphold their oaths. Impeachment does not mean throw someone out of office. It's the trial not result. A variety of punishments can come out of an impeachment.

Constitutionality was upheld in the California Supreme Court against the California Constitution. So, the plight of Prop 8 lies with SCOTUS now. I simply don't see them stepping on states' rights in this case (since "marriages" are state contracts.)

Obama... didn't like either candidate but felt maybe Obama could do a better job. I was wrong... should have voted 3rd party.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Yes, and the people have allowed CONSTITUTIONAL rights to be made.

Don't give me the BS about the past. This is the present. Prop 8 passed... the majority voted for it... you have 3 options

1) find it unconstitutional

2) put up a prop that would reverse prop 8 and let the majority decide

3) work on changing the state's constitution

That's it... anything else is bullshit, losers whining. Prohibition was enacted and repealed, gambling in most staets where it is now legal was outlawed and voted back in.... voters change their minds, mostly when they see that the law passed doesn't work. It's a trial and error thing and since we are all fucking human and make mistakes laws are passed that aren't fair... but people fight to make them right and find ways to repeal them or change them.

Hell, look at the progress now, 10-20 years ago prop 8 may never have even MADE the ballot... work to change it by educating the voters.... don't degrade them for voting the way they did, they'll take umbrage dig in and never change. Educate, show them what Prop 8 is truly about and let them decide again.

Nothing pisses me off more than self righteous ignorant people who believe they know better than the electorate and thus must take what the majority passed to court costing MILLIONS of dollars and opening doors for more government control... when simple education and a little hard work may get the issue passed in the next election or a subsequent election.

But those are the people that want what they want right fucking now and fuck everyone else because only they know what's best... fuck that b.s.

It took Ohio almost 10 years to finally vote in gambling... but they kept trying until they found a way to pass it. Same in some states with smoking laws, etc.

You don't want to do the hard work.... you want government to to do it for you.

Isn't the challenge based precisely on option number 1? So what is your problem with it?

My thought exactly. One good thing about constitutions is that they can protect people from the masses.

Glad to hear its going to be debated over in court where emotion and personal agendas (ideally) are taken out of the equation. The real question all along has been weather or not its constitutional to deny American citizens the right to marry who they want to and take part in the benefits involved. Personal definitions of marriage, religious view points, bigotry and being "grossed out" simply have no place in deciding weather or not something is either constitutional or weather the state has a compelling reason to deny the rights involved. I'm sure some people who voted on prop 8 really did their homework and came up with a rational, well thought out position based on legal history and the wording of the constitution, however can we trust that all took that same care or even had the aptitude to?

Unfortunately all to often when an issue like this comes up before voters gut feelings, prejudices and emotional reactions play just as big a roll as level headedness and rational thinking. Which is why time and time again in our nations history issues about civil rights had to be decided in the end by congress or supreme court. Complex constitutional issues simply have no place in the voting booth to be dictated by the will of the (in some cases uninformed) majority. I would argue the same when it comes to any issue that questions peoples rights especially when it may deal with interpreting the constitution.

This is an important issue and it deserves a proper forum to be debated carefully by legal scholars unimpeded by propaganda and public tastes.

"“We wouldn't need a Constitution if we left everything to the political process,” replied Mr. Olson." Indeed Mr, Olson, indeed.

The US is a nation of laws. It is not a nation of people. To suggest that the majority should be able to vote to do what they want is to completely misunderstand what is great about the US.

No individual, no majority should trump the law.


This challenge of prop 8 is exactly how it should happen. A challenge has been made to see if this prop is constitutionally sound. If it isn't, like any law that is enacted and found wanting the eyes of the constitution (Federal or State), the law is struck down. This is how it's supposed to work.

I'm sorry but this is just completely false. If the people feel a law is unjust they have the power to vote a new one into law. It took PEOPLE to vote on every single law in this country. They didn't just magically appear on paper one day.

Are you referring to those particular people who have seats in our Legislature? Because if so you're missing the key distinction of this WHOLE conversation between "some particular people who have been elected, in principle to implement the will of the electorate" and "THE people, in general, at large".

I'm really only willing to have a conversation with somebody who will have that conversation with me. I'm not going to do the work it would take to keep up with you if you're going to pull in breakfast foods and John Deere and the red sox and cousin pookie.

I really have no problem with it. I have problems with the attitudes like the ones I quoted above.

I also don't think you take something a majority voted for and throw darts and trying to find the law's "unconstitutionality".

I would like to know since the state Supreme Court found it constitutional under Cali. law, then what is the argument they take before the US Court? What part of the US Constitution does it violate?

If you are just taking it to the court because you don't like the result and you feel the majority are just a bunch of idiots and you know better.... then maybe you should reexamine what you truly are wanting and why.

I think courts should be the very last thing you attempt. The first is educating the voters and trying to get a new prop voted. Going to the courts first and expecting them to overturn because you know they will agree with you because the majority is ignorant and wrong... is nothing more than self righteous bullshit.

See, the difference between a true patriotic believer in the system and freedom OF ALL PEOPLE and the people claiming they want freedom but only on their terms, is the belief that, yes, the majority may make some mistakes when voting but education, determination and hard work showing the voters respect all the way through. Those that believe only they know what is best will go to courts and surrender rights and disregard the majority's will as that of ignorance and stupidity and so on.

True freedom means accepting others beliefs, rights and their opinions.

Again, 10-20-30 years ago Prop 8 never would have existed.... getting it on the ballot is an advance in the right direction. Taking it to court and disrespecting the majority because they didn't vote your way.... is the wrong way to try to advance further. Educate, respect and do the footwork and maybe in 1,2, 3 years you'll get the votes you need to overturn it.

Not really sure what this means. But in our country we have a representative democracy at the federal level. The peoples wishes are carried out by the elected representative of a district. If the people aren't happy with said representative they can vote in one who will carry out their wishes. On a more local level there are ballot initiatives, which is what prop 8 was. The will of the people of California was carried out. I don't agree with their decision, but I don't live in California so I can't do anything about it. That's my only point. I'm not arguing against Gay marriage, only against your premise that the will of the people is irrelevant.

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

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"?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

"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.

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

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?

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.

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.'

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.

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

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.

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.

..

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?

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

..

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

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.

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

..

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?

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. :orly:

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.

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. :eek:

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

..

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.

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. :rolleyes:)

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. :shakehead:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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. :)

well, this isn't really a matter of popular opinion in general...like any vote, it's a matter of which political machine was able to use the question of gay marriage to mobilize more people from within its base. the idea that in american pseudo-democracy any particular vote represents "the will of the people" seems goofy to me as a simple function of the number of abstentions. the illusion that things are otherwise follows from the fact that when an election result is tabulated, the total number of votes cast is taken as 100%. from there it kinda follows, this theater, that the percentage of that 100 represents the whole of the population. but it doesn't. it never has. think the first reagan "landslide" electrion that was based on 27% of the registered voters.

there's alot of problems that slide around beneath this surface charade of continual legitimation of the existing order by substituting the total number of people who vote in a particular election for the population as a whole. for example, it gives the impression that somehow or another the american system remains a healthy democracy. which it isn't---think about the quality of information that's generally available. without good information, there can't be rational deliberation. without deliberation, there's no democratic process. this isn't to say the opposite, that therefore there's no democracy--it's just a strange, rickety affair. so any knee-jerk populism seems to me simply naive.

in this particular matter....and this will kinda go against the above, but no matter (it's possible even ordinary to hold multiple viewpoints about the same situation)...what seems to me at issue here is probably self-evident, but to say it anyway: a complicated political and cultural conflict over questions of sexual orientation has condensed around the question of which groups get to control the definition of marriage. words do not remain stable in their meanings (150 years ago, a gig was a two-wheeled wagon that kids for example would cavort about in. now it's a term for a job that a musician might get. for example) one of the few aspects of the american system i think a well-engineered thing is the precedent system and its institutional infrastructure because it allows for adaptations. i think we're in the middle of a process of adaptation of shifts in understanding that center on matters of sexual orientation as a generally public matter. (i say this because it's self-evident that homosexuality is not an invention of the northern hemisphere since, say, stonewall).

what's at issue in this particular fight as it will play out across the court system is basically the same as was at issue in the referendum that passed prop 8---which groups have mobilized better, which have had more power and have been able to effect that power through placement of individuals on the supreme court (say) and the extent to which these broader cultural conflicts percolate into the court, what the arguments are, etc.

it's certainly not the last word on this question, whatever the ruling is.

personally i see no reason at all why people who happen to be gay should not be able to avail themselves marriage.

I can't help but view abstentions as implicitly willing one's vote to whichever side shows up more often. I don't see the goofiness you see.

I also have a hard time seeing abstentions as a bad thing - abstractly, at least - as those would-be voters are more likely to be uninformed or badly informed, making the right or wrong decision on the flip of a coin for uniformly bad reasons. There should be more abstentions.

I think the turnout for Prop 8 reflects the average Californian's assumption that the "NO" side was obviously going to win and didn't particularly need every single vote. I think California drastically underestimated the ability of a vocal fringe to turn out single-issue voters.

I don't have any evidence of that, that's just based on my read of the reaction I saw to it.

I don't think that there's a correlation between showing up to vote and being well informed. Most campaigns depend on actively misinforming voters and the winner is usually the candidate who can trick the most people.

I think in a lot of cases it could be. BUT, to berate the voters call them ignorant and so on INSTEAD of educating them in a better way, to me, is worse than their voting. People make mistakes and learn from them, that's human nature and voting is a something that plays on human nature. Candidates and people pushing issues know this and play to people's emotions, not intellect. But, I believe the ones going for intellect and perhaps change may suffer at first, but if they educate and work WITH voters they get the results they want.

Oh, those who show up are probably badly informed more often than not, sure.

I just think that increased voter participation would exacerbate that problem.

Like voting in Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!!!!:thumbsup:

So now I can't make the obvious observation, instead I have to go on some Voter Education Crusade.

I'm just posting on the damn internet, okay?? Would it be all right if I just had an opinion?

I've always been of the belief that its a terrible idea to encourage as many people to vote as possible. Some people are just so grossly uninformed on the issues that not only are they screwing up the vote for everybody else but probably voting against their own best interests as well. Educating the voters would be awesome and I wholeheartedly support doing so, however so much misinformation is passed around beforehand that I believe its nearly impossible to do.

It would seem no matter what you do propaganda passed around by talking heads and political leaders will almost always defeat rational thought. They pray on our basic emotions and whip the voter base into such a frenzy that it closes them off to anything the other side has to say. In the end a seething mob of voters crowd into the polls full of so much piss and vinegar the question itself almost doesn't matter, they just want to win.

I'd never dream of taking away somebodies right to a vote but I wish we'd knock off the "get out and vote" campaigns and start encouraging people to stay home if they haven't taken the time to educate themselves on the issues before hand.

Not true. The CIvil Rights movement and MLK had the right idea. Their actions and the way MLK gave speeches, his dedication to a cause and his belief.... helped to educate a populace to vote and to create needed changes. He didn't talk down to anyone, belittle or talk about voters being "ignorant"... The news sources at first portrayed him as a rabble rouser, people laughed at him, government and some churches scorned him calling him a "radical" and trying to defame him..... BUT he stayed the course and changes came. Racist politicians that would never have voted for Civil Rights either did or were voted out of office.

It's the same about Vietnam. The populace became educated and voted in people to end the war. Lennon educated people with his art and voice.

The press always has an agenda, the politicians always have agendas.... BUT THE PEOPLE when educated, when someone stands up and says "ENOUGH" and has the charisma, conviction and faith in his beliefs the people will follow regardless of what their churches, politicians and government say.

There are lots of examples in small cities, states and nationally of people standing up, doing what was needed to educate the voters and changing laws (good and bad).... So again, I say it is easy to sit there and to denigrate the voters, it is easy to cry foul and talk about how bad the media, politicians and government is because the people are "so misinformed".... but those with true belief in their cause, those who have faith in their fellow man and believe that we can and will do better.... those men and women will do whatever it takes to lead people and educate them to help the cause.

The winners write the history books, pan. True in war, true in politics.

True winners fight battles that may take years to win but have lasting effects and write tomes of their struggles. Those who fight for instantaneous results write short term essays.

MLK fought battles that took years but the effects of the battles he fought and eventually won are with us today and are now a part of not just the USA but of many countries.

See, this is what the Dem party I belonged to taught us in the 80's and early 90's. Now.... it's all about now and power and screw the voices. They have outdone the GOP when it comes to this.

Rat... you can frame it however you like, but I'd rather be on an MLK's side fighting for the voices to be heard and for lasting change than those in power today. Prop 8 is a great example of the power plays and short term and short effecting wins that do not win the battle, just distance the people.... I'm old school, fight the battles and win the war and the people's support.

And yes, I said Prop 8 was a win for some, who claim it a defeat. It allows more government control, more government period. And that unfortunately is what some desire more than anything. They find that if the degrade the voters, humiliate, and denigrate the voters it'll bully people into voting the way those people want... it'll allow "losses" to becvome court victories that put more government into our lives and take away more rights and liberties.

But how did civil rights changes ultimately come Pan? It certainly wasn't the people that overturned Jim Crow laws. Most of the Jim Crow laws were overturned in front of the supreme court (brown vs board of edu for example) and not by voters who had been enlightened on the issue. JFK when spearheading the Civil Rights act had to appeal to mostly northern congressmen to pass it and met heavy opposition in the process especially from the south. Johnson himself feared the act would be so unpopular that he would lose the southern democrats all together and it probably played a large part in his not seeking a second term. I believe he's quoted after signing the civil rights act as saying "We have lost the south for a generation.". Civil rights weren't brought about just by education and elbow grease alone, it certainly brought the issue to the forefront but ultimately an act of congress was needed as the idea was still very unpopular.

I agree with you in theory Pan but I don't think your stance really reflects our political atmosphere. Lets no forget that history is also filled with examples of people being prone to mass hysteria, public/moral panics, emotions, peer pressure, and bad decision making and this is further exacerbated by a political climate designed to evoke that kind of behavior in the voters. Thats not denigrating voters, calling them ignorant or crying foul its accepting reality. With such a history its perfectly reasonable to question weather or not leaving major issues up to the masses is in the best interest of our country.

The South wasn't that lost for long and while courts may have had to overturn old laws, the new ones got written because of people like MLK doing the work, being heard and showing the way to make lasting changes.

There were some who knew that had they not voted for the changes they would lose their seats. Old leaders like LBJ made way for new dems that were more prone not to look at Civil Rights as a losing proposition but as a building block to a better society and they were elected. A battle may have been lost here and there but because of MLK's and others who went out and demonstrated and fought not with fists or names but through intelligence, teaching and respect, the war was won.

IProhibition is a great example of what you are talking about. There was a group that used mass hysteria, religion, everything they could and won a battle... but in the end they lost the war because scaring the people, tricking the people and so on only works until the people have a voice that speaks out and rallies for them. And throughout our history we have had voices come out and speak.... those who fought Standard Oil and the Monopolies of the late 1800's and early 1900's.... those who fought for unions, for an FDA to make sure the food we ate was inspected, and so on. All those battles started with much greater powers against them but in the end they won the wars. Not by treating voters as less than... but by educating, standing up and yelling and finding followers that believed in the right thing.

I think you will find, pan, that the vociferous folks to which you are referring were in the minority. And that the majority of the changes that they made were the direct result of laws being changed, not by a majority of voters but by a vocal minority that found a voice in government that was willing to stand up and speak for them.

I would wager that prior to those laws being altered, if any of those issues had been put to a referendum it would have not gone down the same way.


In Canada, gay marriage did not become acceptable in the eyes of the law until the previous laws were challenged in court and struck down because they did not meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the issue had been put to a majority vote, it would not have changed. The ideals (and laws) of the Charter are what are paramount, not the will of the people. It was the will of the people that created the Charter. It serves as a legal buffer against a tyranny of the majority. Not everyone is going to be happy with these sorts of laws being enacted. But then, justice is blind.

Pan - (sorry for the quote boxes missing I keep messing them up, its getting late and I'm new at this and all :) )

I'm not sure I agree with your first point the South has been lost for democrats for decades now I don't think they've had strong support here since (with the exception of Dixiecrat candidates)

Its debatable weather or not MLK had any strong impact on the supreme court, while he did help bring the issue to the forefront, largely the Supreme Court ruled on interpretations of the law and constitution. Which is how the supreme court should function, away from outside influence and public opinion. I would agree however that it was people like MLK that helped put those cases in front of the Supreme Court to begin with. Which is very important.

The Civil Rights act was in response to a better educated society but I disagree with you in what way. This discussion started over weather prop 8 should have been decided by a referendum or by representative democracy. Yes education did bring about enlightenment on civil rights but not nearly enough to sway state voters, especially in the South. In this case I would argue that using referendums and waiting for the voters to come around would have taken decades if not generations and it was simply unfair for African Americans to wait that long for a real response. In this case our representatives took control in an environment better suited for an issue like this.

I think were getting lost in two different discussions here Pan. I agree with you on your last paragraph but again those examples aren't a reflection of referendum voting (to the best of my knowledge, I'm rusty on some of those subjects). It was our elected officials who ultimately made the changes based on laws and the constitution after an issue was brought to the forefront and debated in the public forum. My position is that Prop 8 shouldn't have been decided by a referendum, there were simply too many variables involved (as I've outlined above) and that a better atmosphere for ruling on the issue would have been the State Legislature away from (ideally) the problems encountered through a vote by the people.

Sometimes even the hardest of work and best intentions aren't enough to make the changes needed quickly enough. Again I think its unfair for homosexuals to have to wait out a drastic change by the public (generations?) before their rights are granted. Sure the supreme court or congress might rule the against them but I think the ruling will not only come quicker but be backed up by a much more sound opinion.

Anyway I'm enjoying your input on this, its a nice change of pace to have a rational discussion on this issue for a change. You seem like a very passionate person the world needs more people like that.

No problem. :thumbsup:

I think it wasn't just Civil Rights but the anti-gun message from the Dems and Jerry Falwell's introduction of the "Moral Majority", that really helped the GOP in the South. At first Civil Rights may have affected the ultra racists down there, but I think that making sure the black population voting offset that loss. That is one reason, perhaps arguably, the Dems became the Civil Rights party. To offset the losses from perhaps racist groups.

The Dems could not and cannot battle the NRA and what's left of the "Moral Majority", tho. Plus in a state like North Carolina or Kentucky,you had the Dems going hard after their Tobacco industries. So, of course that is going to affect votes.

I would argue that MLK perhaps inspired the lawyers to put more into their cases. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political, but it is and it is very much influenced by public opinion on the major cases it'll hear. (Abortion, for instance.) Up until Reagan, the Dems had loaded the courts. They were more liberal in their interpretations of the Constitution... and perhaps in a vast majority, rightfully so.

Again, I point out, that I have said let the lawyers take it to court and argue.... but instead of sitting there waiting for the courts to rule, go out and educate the voters. That way if Prop 8 is upheld, perhaps you can get a ballot that reverses it passed by having those voters educated.

My problem is that some here will tear down voters for elections they don't like and brag about how the voters were so smart when they get what they want. You can't have it both ways. You believe they are smart or you believe they are mass induced ignorant. It's one or the other... Me, I believe it's all about educating the voters. Don't sit there waiting for something to happen get out and make it happen. So the opposition has more money and better press.... MLK faced the same problems at first. You overcome the odds when you do the work you believe in.

Elected officials are just that...elected officials. We may think they are out of touch and 99% of the time most are. BUT if the voices are loud enough and the threats real, they will cave in to public pressure to keep their seats, or they and that party lose the seat. (This is well seen by the election in Mass.... although the Dems will spin it in other ways, I'm sure there are some that are definitely looking over their shoulder and thinking about thier direction now.

The problem with a state or the US legislature just making the decision in a case like this is, it's volatile. My guess is that even though the vast majority of Dems in Cali stated support and said all the right things, they truly didn't want to touch this issue. If they had wanted to pass it they would have long before now. They wanted to be able to blame the people.

Personally, I think it's a crime to not let people marry whomever they are in love with. But, the majority that voted, at least in Cali. don't agree with me. Blacks had to wait generations... I am in no way saying it is fair, because it isn't. However, I don't see this lasting generations, maybe a couple of elections. It all depends on if people get out there and start educating and demonstrating and making their voice heard for a just cause. Sitting back degrading voters and waiting for the courts to do something, will prolong this.

Look, 10 years ago this would never even be a thought for anyone to even talk about. Now, it's a reality that is very close. I have no question it would not take much to change enough voters minds to vote to overturn prop 8. It may take an election or 2 but, if enough people do the footwork and do what needs to be done (petitions, sit ins, PEACEFUL demonstrations, debates, parades, fundraisers, the need for those that support the issue to go out and vote...etc), it'll be overturned by the voters.

Again, that beats just sitting there bitching about the voters and waiting for the courts to decide.

Thank you. It's a strong issue that I support. I just disagree with how some would rather sit and bitch and wait for something than to go out and show their support. I think that shows weakness and no conviction for the issue. "Let someone else do all the work, I'll watch and bitch or celebrate... but I don't want to do anything otherwise."

I think that is the problem as a whole in this nation. Everyone wants to bitch, no one wants to do anything. They'd rather just have a ballot and vote or have the city/state/fed vote and then bitch or praise afterward.

Our country is founded NOT just on voting but by demonstrating and being able to speak out. If we do not do that, if we just sit back and watch and complain..... then our votes don't matter because we lost those rights by attrition. And once those rights are gone, the government will decide what we vote for and eventually we'll lose even that.

The status quo is crumbling, California....


CTV Winnipeg- Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote - CTV News

19 demonstrations that the united states is a backwater:

Les dix pays qui ont intégralement légalisé le mariage gay - LeMonde.fr

(10 countries which have legalized gay marriage plus 9 that have recognized civil unions.)

Hey, now, roachboy.... at least the U.S. has decriminalized homosexuality. It wasn't so bad. They did so two years before Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The U.S. isn't that far behind....

Right...?