Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[a completely inoffensive name]

In case none of you anti-Prop 8/anti-gay marriage have done so here (link) is a pdf of the actual decision, including the judges written opinions on the matter.

Here are few portions from the PDF that will serve as sufficient to show the point of why Prop 8 is wrong:

"19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law." pg 62

"California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate." pg 62

"Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not
deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality." pg 68

"d. PX0707 at RFA No 13: Proponents admit that eliminating
racial restrictions on marriage has not deprived marriage
of its vitality and importance as a social institution;" pg 69

"Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s
choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one
another and to form a household based on their own feelings
about one another and to join in an economic partnership and
support one another and any dependents. Tr 187:11-16; 188:16-
189:2; 201:9-14 (Cott)." pg 69

"42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human
history. The concept of an identity based on object desire;
that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with
someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex
(homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late
nineteenth century.
a. Tr 531:25-533:24 (Chauncey: The categories of
heterosexual and homosexual emerged in the late
nineteenth century, although there were people at all
time periods in American history whose primary erotic and
emotional attractions were to people of the same sex.);
b. Tr 2078:10-12 (Herek: “[H]eterosexual and homosexual
behaviors alike have been common throughout human
history[.]”);
c. Tr 2064:22-23 (Herek: In practice, we generally refer to
three groups: homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals.);
d. Tr 2027:4-9 (Herek: “[S]exual orientation is at its heart
a relational construct, because it is all about a
relationship of some sort between one individual and
another, and a relationship that is defined by the sex of
the two persons involved[.]”)." pg 73

"44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic
of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a
person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that
defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’
assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is
contrary to the weight of the evidence." pg 74

"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." pg 76

"48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the
characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful
marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples
have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional
bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized
measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment
and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex
or opposite-sex." pg 79

"52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with
marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States." pg 82

"53. Domestic partners are not married under California law.
California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in
other states and are not recognized by the federal government." pg 83

"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84

"55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the
number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,
have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." pg 85

"58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
society." pg 87

"67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates
their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the
stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming
long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are
not good parents." pg 95

"68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and
lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their
relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex
relationships." pg 96

"76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a
belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and
incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other
stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or
as child molesters who recruit young children into
homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes." pg 100 Bolded because there are people perpetuating these stereotypes as fact.


"Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law." pg 126

"The evidence shows conclusively
that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief
that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples." pg 132

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians." pg 137

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." pg 137

Go ahead and read the PDF, for every quote I posted here, are 5 subsections proving each such quote, it's the reason why the PDF is 138 pages. Keep perpetuating bigotry under false victimization and stereotypes, it's all wrong and has been proven to be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They get marriage. I don't really see what you're getting at. Having sex is not a requirement for it.

Yes it is, the marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated, so a man and a woman who are asexual but emotionally co-dependant do not have the same legal protection/bond as a sexually active couple.

Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.

Haha yeah I noticed the parallel with myself, but I've never heard of a Calvinist burnout.

"Evangelical Burnout" is a result of poor preaching and shallow emotional support, the theology breaks down as soon as it comes up against something difficult because it's more about having a communal experience than anything truly spiritual. Idaho knows about the sort of people we get here in Exeter. Often they are young students, vulnerable without parental support, and they are taken in by the "community" of the Church which teaches them it's poorly thought out theology.

Rhy is suffering from something else though, likely he is coming to terms with his religion and beginning to integrate it into his life, rather than suffering huge amounts of angst.

I don't see what the church has to do with getting married. If any two people want to get married in the eyes of the law then let them, if the church doesn't want to let a specific couple marry then who cares what they do. A priest doesn't have to marry a specific heterosexual couple if he doesn't want to, but that couple could still get a legal marriage. Why should any other couple be any different?

Well, see there's the rub, isn't it? The first extension of marriage rights was the right to marry outside Church and have it legally recognised. In Britain we have "equality legislation" that would allow a priest to be prosecuted or sued if he refused to "marry" a homosexual couple should homosexual "marriage" be legal in the UK.

[The Celtic Viking]

What does it matter? You can demand others to say that a tomatoe is really blue but it remains red. Gay marriage is demanding from others to pretend, and I don't like that. Couldn't care less about gay marriage itself it's all fine with me, but why they want it is beyond me.

What does it matter? You were making the argument that gay marriage is "a promise of bloodline", that marriage is about conceiving babies. From that it only follows that you should take the same kind of aversion to heterosexuals who can't or won't make babies getting married. But you don't care about that, so your objection is obviously not about the ability to conceive children.

As for why they want it... no, now you're just trolling.

As I said I think they should be equal, by scrapping marriage. If you just expand marriage, I think it leaves the problems with asexuals etc as below...

Then you seem to be agreeing with me that they have the right to be treated the same way as everyone else. Good.

I know you are saying asexuals can technically marry, but my point is that they are far less likely to want to marry because of a condition they are probably born with. And their reluctance to marry will mean they miss out on all these state-granted privileges being given to heterosexual/homosexual couples. That's discrimination.

No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.

Yes legally speaking they can marry, just as homosexual men could marry women in the past... the point is they won't want to.

Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.

I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?

[Fragony]

Nope what makes you think I'm trolling. Point is simple, they want everyone to pretend they are something they are not. Again, I have no objections, but I can understand our more conservative members. These gays only care about marriage because normal people hold it dearly. If it would be cartracing they would demand gay cartracing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.

As I said, that argument is the same as "homosexual men are treated the same as other men by law, since they can still marry women - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it."

Removing one level of discrimination within the insitution of marriage doesn't end the discrimination for those who will, for whatever reason, always be without it. Telling an asexual they can marry is meaningless to them. They are going to be denied all the nice tax-breaks etc unless they enter into a relationship which they, by nature, would find unnatural for themselves.

Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.

I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?

First off, for the bolded bit, I agree. It is discrimination to allow only heterosexual, and not homosexual marriage.

While that is discrimination within the institution of marriage, asexuals will be victims of discrimination because of the fact that they are excluded from marriage altogether.

As to whether you are being discriminated against... well surely you are? Even if not getting married is for you a conscious preference, why should another person who is in other respects the same as you, go on to get a big tax-break and all the other benefits from the government, purely because they are going to live with someone else? It's discrimination based on a life-style choice.

All the tax-breaks etc exist purely to promote social engineering, of the conservative kind, with keeping the traditional nuclear family etc. Maybe in the past marriage was taken for granted as a good thing, but now society has moved past that, is there really any justification for not scrapping the government's role in marriage?

"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84

Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?

The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.

And the fact that it is doing the latter is what is annoying the conservatives.

[miotas]

Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?

The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.

Exactly! The government shouldn't say who people can or can't marry, they should just allow any two people who wish to do so to marry.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Exactly! The government shouldn't say who people can or can't marry, they should just allow any two people who wish to do so to marry.

Why should two people get legal priviledges for living together? If you think about it it's a pretty strange, arbitrary thing to do for a government not seeking to promote social engineering. And unfair on single people, especially if they will always be single due to a natural condition.

[PanzerJaeger]

Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical.

I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.

The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.

I hardly think infidelity is unique to male/male relationships. Is that the big difference that you were referring to, that homosexuals are somehow incapable of monogamy? Studies have also shown this to be patently false.

The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.

I just don't see much evidence that homosexuals are incapable of managing their sexual relationships in the same way as heterosexuals.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.


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.

[al Roumi]

I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[Beskar]

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.

Wrong. My post on the first page is the correct version.

[The Celtic Viking]

@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

I said more likely, and that the increase was from a very low starting base.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?

But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

This is probably true to an extent, most people I know are what are termed 'Huns' (<---everything beyond no. 1 on that list, no. 4 made me lol), they are into the whole loyalist culture etc.

But even then I know people in the Evangelical circles (another sub-culture surrounding Christianity) and those churches are growing at an impressive rate.

But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to agree with Rhyfelwyr state-recognised marriages should have as much recognition as putting Cthulhu down on the census form as your religion

But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.

This is off topic but I would say the "The Belief in the Belief in God" is high

This video with Dan Dennet explains it better

[The Celtic Viking]

But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.

I did say I don't disagree with all of them, didn't I? Meh. It doesn't really matter to me if they removed them all. Things would have to change, but that's not a reason not to do it, and I positively want most of the changes anyway.

[Centurion1]

Your irish cowboy, your belief is in guilt.

[gaelic cowboy]

To paraphrase Dara O'Briain even if I went into mass and smashed up the altar in front of everyone while flanked by two strippers I would still just be called a "Bad Catholic".

There is no way out for an Irishman were just like Patrick McGoohan on the island being chased by giant inflatabe beachballs

[Rhyfelwyr]

To paraphrase Dara O'Briain even if I went into mass and smashed up the altar in front of everyone while flanked by two strippers I would still just be called a "Bad Catholic".

Take away the strippers and they'll call you a "Good Protestant". Iconoclasm ftw.

[Xiahou]

Here are few portions from the PDF that will serve as sufficient to show the point of why Prop 8 is wrong:

Honestly, I don't see the relevance of most of those points.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Honestly, I don't see the relevance of most of those points.

The point of all those quotes, is that the judge ultimately ruled that every single argument put forward by the proponents of prop 8 had no rational basis. Let me repeat that, they were all illogical. All the stereotypes such as gays are promiscuous are false and simply fodder for the bigots to justify why gays should not have marriage. EVERY argument was rejected and at no point in the document did the judge say that the prop 8 proponents had any facts on their side but repeatedly declared that the facts were not on their side. If you don't see the relevence of the quotes then you are not knowledgable enough to even enter the discussion. If you want you can ask me what each quote means.

[Xiahou]

All the stereotypes such as gays are promiscuous are false

See, I don't care if they're true or not- it's irrelevant. Nor do I care if homosexual couples are capable of falling in love the same way as heterosexual couples. None of that should matter when determining how people can enter into a government recognized contractual relationship.

The question is whether the government can extend recognition to certain people based on their behavior. I didn't see that addressed anywhere- which is why I think this will probably be reversed when it gets to the SCOTUS.

[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.

[Centurion1]

The fight against gay marriage is a losing one. All you need to do is look around. Look at PJ an ardently conservative member or myself. We are both young and more importantly highly conservative. My generation feels radically differently regarding gay marriage compared to previous generations. However chruches should not be forced to marry gay couples.

[Megas Methuselah]

If you guys are ardent conservatives, then the world is moving forward to a better place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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....

Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.

Sexuality is not an on/off switch, but more of a continuum. Some blokes will look at the male star of an adult feature as he waves his six-standard deviations above the mean appendage about and think -- gee I wish I had a mutton dagger like that -- while others would think about having at that mutton dagger. Still others might be turned on by the same depending on mood but unaffected most other times.

A person's propensity for a same-sex primary focus in sexuality is, I believe, either genetically determined or genetically pre-dispositioned. It defies logic that as many persons who are gay would choose this status (were it optional) and all of the attendent abuse etc. I look forward to the researchers someday being able to provide demonstrable proof that this is so.

At that point, I think many of the "holdouts" would have to re-evaluate their views, and reclassifying "gay" as something that is comparatively rare, but naturally occurring -- and hence NOT a worthy basis for discrimination.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:

Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?

Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?

Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?

Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?

Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?

My conclusion: Prop 8 is just a moral view that there is "something wrong with same-sex couples." I don't believe that alone should be a permissable reason to legislate against same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and provide a stable environment for raising children.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dissagree, even when homosexuality was not frowned upon (say, Ancient Greece) marriage was ever reserved for man and woman, so that the rearing of children would have a legal basis and protection. Given that we acknowledge even today that (all things being equal) having both your naturlparents, together, is best the basic rational appears still to be valid.

Homosexual couples need to involve a third person (and a doctor) to create children, such children have three "parents". This has reached a point now where two Lesbians in the UK are now allowed to omit the biological father from the Birth Certificate and put down both their own names. If you want to talk about a lack logic, there is an abundence in the increasingly complex and sometimes cruel and absurd arrangementsd used to accomodate the desire of modern homosexual couples to ape heterosexual ones.

To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.

[PanzerJaeger]

To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.

Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?