Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08...ands_vict.html

Sorry hetero couples, now that the gays can marry, obviously your love means nothing anymore. Just take your marriage certificate and burn it since it's now just a piece of paper in the eyes of god now.

[drone]

I'm betting the 9th will uphold this ruling on the appeal, and it will go to the Supremes. Which should be hilarious.

[Wishazu]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

[Megas Methuselah]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If only having marriages for heterosexual couples is unconstitutional, I don't see how allowing marriages for homosexuals as well can suddenly make marriage constitutional.

OK so homosexuals were denied the right to marry in the past, but what about asexuals* or people who can't get married for various reasons? How are they being discriminated against any less than homosexuals were?

* Yes, people will point out that asexuals can marry, but that is akin to the old argument that heterosexual-only marriage laws didn't discriminate against homosexual men, since they could still marry a woman like any other man!

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

Yes, it is ridiculous that a Federal judge can declare part of a state constitution, unconstitutional to the Federal constitution as if it is subservient to it. Which it is, which is also why America has been going downhill for the past 145 years.

[Husar]

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.

Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...

I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...

Dat's how I roll.

I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.

Yeah, I know. Who cares, provided it doesn't interfere in one's own personal life? Ok, yeah sure, it's akward when a gay guy hits on you, but life isn't perfect.

[Ice]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

Thread.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

I didn't know you hung around church entrances so much. In any event, if you're that dead sexy to lure a newlywed away from his partner, you wouldn't think your skin color would be much of a problem.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.

When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.

[Whacker]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.

[Goofball]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.

Well said PJ. Good to see you're still here. You're right. This fight will never be completely won by the courts having to overturn hateful legislation time after time. The haters will still keep hating, no matter how many judges tell them they're idiots. Having said that, sometimes activists have no choice but to use the courts to protect against bigotry in the short-term. When a patient has a heart attack, the doctor tells them to change their lifestyle, eat healthier, and quit smoking. But he also performs surgery to make sure the patient lives to benefit from this healthier new lifestyle.

[Fragony]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

Changed my mind on it, but the people who care have arguments that can't be just dismissed.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

Homosexuals care, because it's really obscene that other people are allowed to vote on whether or not they have a right to marry. Kind of like when some people said black people couldn't marry whites.... or each other. Some heterosexuals care, because they can't imagine why it would possibly harm society, or why treating gay people as inferior is warranted. Or popular, for that matter. Some people care because they don't like to picture gay people together. Some people care because they are worried their god will spank them if they don't object to it. And of course, there's macho peer pressure to hate on those in the minority and unlike themselves.


And if you'll permit me, I'm about to describe my thoughts (rant) on this issue to no one in particular.


I note that some people seem to get all indignant and object, saying that comparing "what those gays do" to traditional marriage is insulting. Which I have to ask; what is it that they do that is so different? Do they kiss each other? Spend time together? Raise a family together? Worry about stress at work together? Care for their community together? Grow old together? Sounds pretty normal to me. I actually am kind of offended at some of the definitions of marriage proposed now, for the specific purpose of preventing gay rights and "protecting" something that wouldn't be protected, but rather banned, by Prop 8.

For example, I note that some people describe the purpose of marriage as to have children; which seems rather strange to me. Some people get married and are still undecided as to whether they want to have children or not. My father recently got re-married, to his long time sweetheart. They are too old to have children. Is their marriage a sham? What about those who can't have kids or choose not to? Is their marriage a sham? I also note that people often have children out of wedlock. Especially in the case of another "traditional values" favorite, keeping the child a rapist forcibly implants in your body. Seems to me that child was born out of wedlock, and for good reason. But I suppose since there was no marriage there, that child doesn't exist? When parents divorce, do they saw the child in half? I don't think so. When gay people have children, and many, many of them do (and no one seems to dispute that they have a right to do so... which makes it awfully suspect when they object to their right to get married) those children wish to grow up in stable homes. Why would marriage between their parents harm these children? So it's utterly baffling how having children should affect the rights of gays in negative fashion. In fact, under this metric, it would seem to be anti-family to deny the right of gay parents with children, or who want to have children, to wed each other.

If the implication is that gay people can't/shouldn't have children, I would like people with such an opinion to go up to a child with gay parents and tell them that their parents are different and inferior to you and your spouse, and that your children are better off than the child of a gay couple, and that there is something totally wrong with that family, and they should be broken up and not allowed to raise their kids and not allowed to have more. I guarantee you, even the most hardened anti-gay person out there will have difficulty with that. And if you could actually go through with it, I'd like to reverse that challenge, because I'd really rather not subject that child to more bigotry than they will already be exposed to in their life. Especially coming from an adult that supposedly is looking out for their best interest. How is a child supposed to view a world that hates them before they even meet them? Or hates their parents before they even meet them? Or believes that their parents have no right to raise them? Or believes that their parents might love each other, but it isn't the real, true love that other people have, it's a different, inferior kind of love, that should be opposed and shunned.

I can't imagine how pro-family a person has to be, before they are that anti-family.

So if we divorce ourselves from the silly notion that marriage is necessarily about children (where you automatically lose, because gays have a right to have children and raise them together, and straight couples don't necessarily have children) then you have to focus on the other aspects of marriage.

Love: It's amazing that in a nation with drive-through wedding chapels and divorce lawyers in every town and television shows based entirely on how much married couples cheat on one another, that one thinks they have the moral authority to question how "in love" other people are, and must be, before they get married. This sacred institution, as some have called it, has been made less sacred not by the gays, but by irresponsible and disingenuous people of all orientations, mostly straight in this case, obviously. I challenge someone to go up to a gay couple that has spent 10 years together and suggest that they know, for a fact, that this couple doesn't really love each other. It's just a phase that they will grow out of. Their feelings aren't real; it's all a charade. The purpose of which, of course, is to be a big drama queen and rub in the faces of the establishment how rebellious they are. Surely that must be the reason. I would apologize for using a straw man argument, if only that were the case. I truly wish that were the case. Sadly, this absurd notion is actually considered to be why gay people stay together, by some "traditional" people. Not all believe it, maybe not a majority, but this sad excuse for a rational reason is believed by far too many people.

"It's not real, it's just a phase. They don't really love each other." It is remarkable that one can say that without even meeting said couples.

Religion: Another reason given for why gays cannot get married. It's insulting to the religions who do not accept homosexuality.

Well, that assumes that all religions denounce homosexuality, or that you have to be religious to get married. Aren't I, a non-religious person, allowed to be wed? Well if I am, doesn't that mean I don't have to accept the tenets of some popular religion to get married? That I am allowed to have a secular service and still call it marriage? If that is the case, then why is religion being touted as a reason gays can't get married? Last I checked, there was a separation of church and state. The state recognizing marriage between same-sex partners is not the same as your church recognizing it. Though, if you live in this state, you have to recognize that the state considers it marriage. What a shame. Don't worry, you can still harbor your dislike and prejudice in your heart; the state can't stop you from doing that.

Legal rights: Very few people are arguing that gays shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, or be afforded other rights that married people have. They simply object to calling it "marriage". I don't care if you call it banana creme pie in your own household, but if your only sticking point with marriage between gays is that it is called marriage, then you have your priorities backward.

If you agree that:

• Gay people aren't sick and don't need to be cured of "the gay", they are ordinary people like you and me, allowed to live and be gay (not like they have a choice)
• Gay people have a right to be with one another in a relationship, and that what they do in the bedroom is none of your business (emphatically so, it seems)
• Gay people have children, and this is just a fact you can't really argue with (and they have these kids with or without your approval, as if they needed it)
• Gay people are allowed to raise their own children (Who else is going to raise them, the TV machine?)
• Gay people don't have to be religious to get married (Seems kinda obvious...)
• Gay people should otherwise be treated equally in every respect (sure, you can see your partner in the hospital... just don't call it marriage, call it a civil union)

Then it seems as though you approve of (or do not wish to oppose) EVERY.... SINGLE.... ASPECT..... of homosexual pair bonding. The only hang-up you have is the word marriage.

Sure, being gay, living in a gay relationship, having relations, having legal rights that pertain to their partner, having and raising children, that's all okay. But the word marriage is just wrong to apply to gays, you say? What else do you want to call it? You don't care as long as it isn't the word 'marriage'?

Fine, they will call it "marriage", using the traditional gay spelling with the silent and invisible letter T. It's a different kind of marriage with a different definition, just spelled exactly the same (if you overlook the invisible letter T) and treated exactly the same by society and the state. Problem solved.

I would admire the principled stance against gay marriage, if only there were some principles involved.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.

Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?

At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc. The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.

But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value. And don't discriminate against single people, the consequences of this discrimination are very real.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.

No, some of them used far less rational ones, I'm afraid.

Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place? Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.

Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?

Why should they give such privileges to two people of opposite gender? Same reasons apply, in every case.

At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc.

Oh. Well, that's archaic, outdated, and irrelevant. I think you'll agree that standard doesn't apply to heterosexuals, and isn't an argument against gay marriage either.

The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.

Good, so you agree that when gay people raise children, it is advantageous that they are married and more closely resemble a nuclear family.

Thank you for supporting gay equality.

But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value.

Well, sounds like you've met every homosexual couple and successfully concluded they don't have such values. I bet that took a long time, you must be exhausted.

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

And yet, other than appeals to how it's been done in the past, I hear no reasons. Appeal to tradition isn't technically a reason. Appeal to change isn't the reason being put forward by gay marriage proponents, so opposing advocates can surely do better.

It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.

I guess adoptive parents aren't really parents then?

Surely not even close to an argument against gay marriage.

What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.

Recorded history is full of intolerance, ignorance and injustice. Some aim to record some history that is slightly less intolerant, and more just.

Appeal to tradition is not only bad logic, it's a bad thing to hold up as virtuous. Thank goodness some people suggested that the traditional role of women could be changed from a non-voting non-citizen with very few rights to full equals, no matter how it had been done in the past.

Change isn't wrong because it is change, you have to demonstrate why the change is wrong. That has some very shaky ground in this instance, particularly given the ABSURD arguments proposed by those supporting Prop 8 in a courtroom. These are supposed to be the professionals who know what they are talking about. What they argued in court was beyond laughable, it was shameful.

I truly believe that someone here could argue their case better, but so far the only thing I've seen that's close to reasonable is that supporting traditional marriage via tax breaks is unjust in and of itself. Which I may or may not agree with, but at least that's a reason.... for something. And yet, it still has nothing to do with why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.

This is not too far off what they argued in court, and it's no wonder why it didn't cut any mustard with the judge. It doesn't really explain any reason why gays are different and not entitled to the right to marry. It also isn't backed up by anything, it is just a stated opinion, not to mention that it seems obviously wrong.

BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.

And it would be as relevant as a poll that asked people whether they preferred Coke or Pepsi.

Reason why gays shouldn't get married: poll says people don't like the idea!

That's not a reason why gays shouldn't get married.

The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.

It says so much, that people still struggle to explain why they voted that way, or why they hold such beliefs.

It says so much, that lies, stereotypes, and rumor are the most substantive arguments put forward against it.

It also says that you don't need to know what is constitutional to vote on what laws there should be.

It also says that the constitution is really the last, best defense against the irrational views of the majority, whose sole arguments against it are that it hasn't been done that way before, and lots of people agree that it hasn't been done that way before.