Prop 8

[Itort]

I just had a thought, hasn't the federal government already established what marriage is. I am referring to fact that they essentally banned plural marriage in the case of Morman church.

 

[chadk]

Actually Rich, marriage has been around longer than our country... So, yes, marriage is a religious, social, and cultural institution that existed before the constitution and will live longer than it as well. If there was no gov't, there would still be marriage.

But you are right in that the gov't cannot get involved in marriage as far as the religious aspects of it go. The gov't can only get involved in marriage from a legal contract stand point. Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Christian, atheist - all have a way to recognize marriage that is unique from one another. The gov't treads on thin ground when it promotes one above the other. And yet as noted with Mormon's and polygamy, the gov't did. The gov't has been involved in many aspects of marriage and setting certain boundaries on it. Marriage is the building block of our families, communities, and society in general. So the gov't does have good reason to be involved in regulating it and protecting it to some extent. It is a tricky balancing act and no matter what happens, clearly not everyone will be satisfied.

Laura - that is your definition of marriage and I'm sure many would agree. But many others do not, including the majority of Americans, the President, congress, etc.

Extremists on both sides try to vilify the other side. Just look in this thread alone where you see supporters of Prop 8 and anyone who agrees with "marriage should be one man + one woman" like Obama and Clinton, and you see them painted as "hateful", "ignorant", not "enlightened", "bigoted" and so forth. And this is in a friendly context on a harmless Tortoise board! Trying to bully the other side into submission is not the way to go.

 

[bettinge]

I believe in the constitution and I believe that marrage is between people of opposite sex! Attorneys, citizens and judges will be discusing the fine details for years to come, and all will never be happy with the out come. We as a nation are a melting pot of values!

 

[richalisoviejo]

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time as well. "Feelings of one-half the population" doesn't make your argument justifiable or defensible.

I believe the current composition of the Supreme Court may be rigged to rule against equal protection for same-sex couples. Although our Courts are required to be neutral and unbiased expositors of the law, we have witnesses far too many Supreme Court (5-4) decisions fall along a political divide.

I doubt the personal/political/conservative/religious biases of Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas will allow them to vote in favor of equal protection for gays. All they need is one more vote to become an "oppressive" majority. I don't know how many justices, if any, will retire in the near future, nor do I know if President Obama is inclined to appoint any justices who may lean a little to the left. I don't see the issue going to the "national stage" until its proponents can sense a shift in the winds.

Those who choose to descrimate are blindly meandering through life with their narrow-minded head stuffed full of stereotypical animus toward a class of individuals. No one is required to indulge in their unjustifiable hate and irrational "the sky is falling" propaganda.

 

[chadk]

Please note Rich, that 5-4 and 4-5 decisions that fall along the party lines clearly show that BOTH sides have personal/political/conservative/religious biases if you are going to go there...

And again, name calling and bullying to fit your view of the world is not a good approach - there is plenty of blind and narrow minded people doing lots of stereotyping on both sides. Again, this would include Obama who has stated a few times now that he feels marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Rich, my point regarding marriage being around longer than the US constitution is simply to say you are wrong in trying to suggest this: "Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law." Again, marriage spans time and borders and legal systems. Just saying your definition is a little to narrow in this context...

And again, do you still stand by this statement: "DOMA is not law"?

 

[dmmj]

personally it is nice to see a civilized debate about it that did not resort to name calling and hateful words being thrown about like I have seen at both demostartions pro and against gay marriage. Personally I did not vote for or against because I did not want to see another law being written into the books, must be my libertarian side showing. While I would be for gay marriage if someone could show me where in the constitution it says so, and besides gay peoplee can marry , just not other gay people, right? sorry to make light of this issue. And what is a super majority of the voters? or is it just enough people who happen to agree with you? are we talking what 75% 80% 90% even admending the constitution only requires 2/3 of the states. I am also personally disgusted with this issue trying to be equated with the problems black people had to go thru, just MHO

 

[richalisoviejo]

Please note Rich, that 5-4 and 4-5 decisions that fall along the party lines clearly show that BOTH sides have personal/political/conservative/religious biases if you are going to go there...

And again, name calling and bullying to fit your view of the world is not a good approach - there is plenty of blind and narrow minded people doing lots of stereotyping on both sides. Again, this would include Obama who has stated a few times now that he feels marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Rich, my point regarding marriage being around longer than the US constitution is simply to say you are wrong in trying to suggest this: "Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law." Again, marriage spans time and borders and legal systems. Just saying your definition is a little to narrow in this context...

And again, do you still stand by this statement: "DOMA is not law"?

You're presenting a straw man arguement.

I understand the effects of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are to allow states to ignore the Full Faith & Credit clause (art. iv, sect. 1) of the Constitution, with respect to same-sex marriage. My question is, barring a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision on F.F.&C., how can an act of Congress overriding a provision of the Constitution be constitutional, and therefore be enforced? lawful? It can’t. If it was legal tell me how did 18,000 gay couples marry in CA?

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution does not, nor has it ever forced every state to endorse every law in every other state. If it did, that would mean that every state has effectively the same laws, which has never been the case. There are exceptions to allow for laws of one state that violate public policy in others, and legalization of same-sex marriage is a classic example of such a law. This state of affairs looks to be continuing for at least a while into the future. Give it time. As public policy evolves, so does the law.

This is part of what's in dispute, whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race is an inherent right. The law is not obligated to allow anyone to do anything he wishes. The fact remains that the law should be treating everyone equally. You cannot argue that people are being denied a right before you demonstrate that what they are being denied is a right. Now, present an argument that gay marriage is a not right.

 

[chadk]

OK, so just so we are all on the same page then, DOMA is indeed law. How this impacts the issue at hand short term as well as long term is another matter. But it was clearly signed into law.... So your statement was indeed false.

"something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race"

I dont' think this is a true statement. The concept of same sex couples trying to get 'married' is relatively new. Marriage has historically been understood as invovling couples of the opposite sex. So it was never 'forbidden', it just did not exist as a concept.

 

[richalisoviejo]

You still don’t get the legal analysis. There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this [505 U.S. 833, 897] Court reaffirmed the common law principle that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. Id., at 141 (Bradley, J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.

. . . Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that DOMA is invalid.

Here is a bit of history for you. Rosa Parks wasn't the first black person to be arrested for refusing to give her seat on the bus to a white person. Others before her tried to stand up for their rights, but were met with resistance:

The Montgomery Bus Boycott officially started on December 1, 1955. That was the day when the blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. It was not, however, the day that the movement to desegregate the buses started. . . . Perhaps the movement started on the day in the early 1950s when a black pastor named Vernon Johns tried to get other blacks to leave a bus in protest after he was forced to give up his seat to a white man, only to have them tell him, "You ought to knowed better."

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html

After the bus boycott began, the blacks in the community were retaliated against with arrests, threats, beatings, and bombings.

When the city defended segregation by saying that integration would lead to violence, Judge Rives asked, "Is it fair to command one man to surrender his constitutional rights, if they are his constitutional rights, in order to prevent another man from committing a crime?"

Sounds like you believe that oppressed classes of persons ought to bide their time and wait to become equal members of society until such time as their majoritarian oppressors agree not to oppress them anymore. Perhaps, under your view, the blacks in the south would have eventually effectuated "social change" without the assistance of our courts to enforce the Constitution. But, what good is our beloved Constitution if it is just a meaningless piece of paper that holds empty promises? While some people might be complacent to wear the chains of oppression, others are not. The brave ones pave the way for others to follow.

 

[chadk]

Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.

Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.

I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).

 

[richalisoviejo]

Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.

Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.

I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).

That is because you don’t understand the concept of equal rights, That is a ridiculous idea and totally without merit. And your wrong, it was’t so long ago it was illegal for an interal couple to marry. I suppose you believe Matthew Wayne Shepard didn’t wear the chains of oppression? Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. All because he was gay, do you call that drama. I call it wearing the chains of oppression. And many others have faced the same dramatic death.

 

[Candy]

It's a matter of degree and scale, but the problem-issue faced by both is the same. To argue that degree and scale should minimize one in comparision with the other is to minimize both. In other words to devalue the Gay Movement's pursuit of civil rights by comparing it to African American's pursuit of their civil rights is to also devalue African Americans.

 

[chadk]

Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.

Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.

I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).

That is because you don’t understand the concept of equal rights, That is a ridiculous idea and totally without merit. And your wrong, it was’t so long ago it was illegal for an interal couple to marry. I suppose you believe Matthew Wayne Shepard didn’t wear the chains of oppression? Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. All because he was gay, do you call that drama. I call it wearing the chains of oppression. And many others have faced the same dramatic death.

There is senseless violence against all types of people from all types of backgrounds everyday. And each time it is wrong and horrible. The white male who ends up in the wrong neighborhood and is beaten simply because he is white. The women who is cornered in the alley and raped simply because she is a woman. The Christian who has his head removed simply because he is Christian. It goes on and on.

But again, it is not comparible to the systematic violence and oppression of blacks from being ripped from their homelands and tossed into slavery and considered less than human for so long. Or the jews who were systematically murdered by the millions. And so on. Apples and oranges.

 

[desertsss]

Just to chime in a little here. Didn't read the entire post, but got the jist of it. I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.
My sister happens to be gay, and instead of getting married here, she has to go to Canada. (so she told me) Anyone who loves another person should be able to marry them. Imagine if it was the other way around. Straight people couldn't get married because the "norm" was gays getting married.

 

[mgallas]

Our government, whether it is our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a majority of the people voted to write STATE SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

I would have hoped we Californians were more tolerant than this.

---

Prop 8 is discrimination pure and simple. It is not about gay or not,it is about different rules for different populations It is wrong and in the long run will fall to a forward thinking population.

 

[chadk]

I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.

I'm not fully convinced discrimination is taking place. Again, it is only a recent phenomena that the definition of marriage has been challenged with hopes of expanding to same sex couples.

But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?

Oh, and I have a sister who works as an entertainer in gay clubs and is married to a guy. But both of them apparently swing both ways when they want.

I also have friends\co-workers who are gay.

And I also understand the civil rights movement quite well and impact it has had on our society. We just adopted twin baby girls who are black and that would have been almost unheard of a few decades ago.

 

[Candy]

Here's the definition of discrimination for you. I'm not sure what your definition is. Discrimination.....The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way.

---

Apples and oranges are both still types of fruit. The Afrircan-American struggle led the way for many other groups to seek equal rights, even though their struggles my not live up to the magnitude of the experiences of African Americans. The African-American experience is not decreased up holding it up as an example, rather it is honored as a role model, a pathway or process for others. The point in envoking a comparison is not about the experiences, but rather that pathway or process.

 

[desertsss]

I totally agree Candy

 

[richalisoviejo]

But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?

I missed judged you in the debate, something I don’t usually do. I expected you to bring this up just thought you would have done it towands the beginning of the thread, I also expected you to bring up Bestiality. Apples & oranges indeed.

The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same is said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.

Your reverse psychology argument is completely transparent. A bit of legal advice, Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.

 

[chadk]

But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?

I missed judged you in the debate, something I don’t usually do. I expected you to bring this up just thought you would have done it towands the beginning of the thread, I also expected you to bring up Bestiality. Apples & oranges indeed.

The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same is said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.

Your reverse psychology argument is completely transparent. A bit of legal advice, Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.

Rich, it was really a simple question see how far she was willing to take her statement of "anything goes". Clearly most people are comfortable putting some boundaries around this thing called marriage. After that, it is only a matter of degree.

And you are the first one to bring up bestiality... And I clearly said consenting adults. You are tossing out too many red herrings...

"Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage"

Nonsense. People marry everyday just for cheating the tax system. To say this is the only reason polygamy is illegal is just not right. And if a Muslim man wants to honor his religion, or a Mormon, or just a free loving hippie and marry several women, who are you to say they can't? If they love each other, shouldn't they be able to? Are you discriminating against a minority group if you don't allow it?



"Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality."

Please... really... Aren't you the one that said earlier that marriage is not just a union centered on offspring? Clearly a couple of brothers or male cousins could marry then if that is your only concern, right? How about if a father and adult daughter choose to get married, but first get sterilized?

It sounds like you are not hestitant to discrimate and define marriage in ways that fit YOUR personal feelings on the subject - but anyone else must be wrong...

---

Here's the definition of discrimination for you. I'm not sure what your definition is. Discrimination.....The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way.

---

Apples and oranges are both still types of fruit. The Afrircan-American struggle led the way for many other groups to seek equal rights, even though their struggles my not live up to the magnitude of the experiences of African Americans. The African-American experience is not decreased up holding it up as an example, rather it is honored as a role model, a pathway or process for others. The point in envoking a comparison is not about the experiences, but rather that pathway or process.

---

"The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way"

People are treated different in various settings for various reasons all the time. There are 'black only' things, 'women only' things, 'children only', 'singles only', and so on.

I could argue that I should be able to use the women's restroom or women's shower\locker room at the gym. Or I should be able to put my son in girl scouts. Maybe that sounds silly or extreme to you, but not long ago, so did the idea of 2 men getting 'married'...

So the 'unfair' part then needs to be looked at. If marriage has always been understood as one man + one woman, then nobody is being treated differently or unfairly if someone is denied marriage who wants to marry his cousin, 2 best friends, or same sex partner. The standard is upheld equally for all. Now if you can establish that marrige has a much broader definition than one man \ one woman, then you can start to gain some traction for those situations, but line still has to be drawn somewhere.


Side note - apparently about 1/2 of the states do indeed allow first cousins to marry. So should we go after the other half of the states to allow now too?