Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[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.

[Xiahou]

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.

You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?

--------

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?

1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.

2) Here I would say no.

3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.

4)N/A. See #3.

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.

Just thought I would highlight this, since it is at the heart of what I am saying.

[a completely inoffensive name]

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

It is not a flawed premise. Without government involvement in the declaration of unity and love between multiple individuals, the responsibility is snatched by the Churches who discriminate and declares that the love between people of differing lifestyles is invalid and immoral. This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing. Because only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal. I can't think of anything more evil then declaring and thinking that one group's love is in anyway better or superior to another group's love. This is why every single person who is in favor of Prop 8 instantly loses my respect and is a bigot in my eyes.

The set criteria as shown in the 138 page document I posted, shows that government's only requirement for marriage is love. That is less requirements then any church or religion out there.

EDIT: Also, everything ATPG said.

[Fragony]

Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.

[miotas]

This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing.

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered.

Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.

1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?

[Fragony]

I1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?

me ow.

What's it to you anyway. I really want this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered

Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".

[Fragony]

Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".

Scrap sexual and replace with reproduction, that is what marriage traditionally is about, bloodline. Times change of course, kindly let it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I swear my opponenets in this thread are deliberately ignoring what I am saying.

I said I want to abolish state-recognised marriage. You can do whatever loopholes you like to convince yourself that two men living together, or (in case you object to consent from animals) a man marrying an object, are somehow the same as what a marriage has always been taken to mean. But you can't make it so.

For the purposes of this thread, just pretend that the nuclear family of a man/woman/children never historically had any value as the basic social unit. Now, can someone tell me why the government should give any two people, be they man/man or man/woman, various legal and tax privileges on the grounds of their relationship status?

Is there any reason at all to have government-recognised marriage in this day and age? As I've said, it causes real discrimination against single people as seen in the BBC article I linked to, which is especially unfair if their singleness is due to a condition such as asexuality.

It is not a flawed premise. Without government involvement in the declaration of unity and love between multiple individuals, the responsibility is snatched by the Churches who discriminate and declares that the love between people of differing lifestyles is invalid and immoral. This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing. Because only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal. I can't think of anything more evil then declaring and thinking that one group's love is in anyway better or superior to another group's love. This is why every single person who is in favor of Prop 8 instantly loses my respect and is a bigot in my eyes.

The set criteria as shown in the 138 page document I posted, shows that government's only requirement for marriage is love. That is less requirements then any church or religion out there.

Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the values of society? If churches don't want to marry gay people then that is entirely their own business. Are gays like the left out kids in the playground, they have to go any cry to the teacher because the big kids won't let them play?

This is the free world, people don't have to like gays or approve of what they do. By all means, they deserve legal equality (which all people will only have by abolishing state-recognised marriages). But that's not enough for some people, they have to bring in the government to enforce cultural equality, social engineering at its finest. I thought the US Constitution was about protecting the lives and property of individuals, while allowing the morals of society to be free from government control. If society doesn't like gay people, it's not the job of the government to try to change that.

I don't understand the logic, to quote the bit ACIN bolded for emphasis: "only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal". So the government feels the need to mimick a religious institution in order to make people feel equal. What next, government-approved baptisms and communion for whoever the church leaves out?

[miotas]

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted. If you want to argue about abolishing marriage then that is a separate issue altogether but as long as marriage is around, then it is discrimination to say that no one but hetero's can have it.

[Fragony]

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.

How does that change anything? It's nature itself that says no, pretend all you want but I will not.

[miotas]

How does that change anything? It's nature itself that says no, pretend all you want but I will not.

When did nature itself say no, and even if it did since when have humans followed what's natural? I was responding to this by the way.

So the government feels the need to mimick a religious institution in order to make people feel equal. What next, government-approved baptisms and communion for whoever the church leaves out?

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.

Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution. ACIN appealed to the religious nature of marriage in saying that since the churches won't marry gay people, the government must do it to make them equal.

If you want to argue about abolishing marriage then that is a separate issue altogether but as long as marriage is around, then it is discrimination to say that no one but hetero's can have it.

And it is also discrimination to say I can't marry my TV. And don't tell me to call it something other than marriage. I demand a tax cut for my love for my TV.

Or will homosexual couples now have to burn their marriage certificates because my love for my TV 'weakens' their marriage?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution.

Marriage has been a business arrangement in western society. Is it wrong to call our current conception "marriage" because it is no longer arranged by the parents?

Business arrangements involve the government, and with marriage we have things like visiting rights and alimony and inheritance.

[miotas]

Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution.

Actually marriage as we know it is a fairly recent invention, until a few hundred years ago, a marriage was an entirely private affair. No recognition was required from the state or church, a marriage simply involved two people saying they would marry each other. I can see where you are coming from that returning to this state of affairs would be better, perhaps having the only government involvement being a simple acknowledgment that the two people are now kin.

Of course my knowledge is only limited to a "western" viewpoint, I have no idea how the rest of the world went about things.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?

A reasonable question.

For me, it seems that most of the reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage in the USA objects for reasons that boil down to either moral traditionalism or religious convictions. It is my belief that, were it proven that being "gay" is an innate quality, that a goodly portion of the religious opposition and traditional opposition would have to re-think their whole attitude towards sexuality. Discriminating against a chosen behavior which you define as abhorent is more defensible -- in logical terms -- than is discrminating against an innate characteristic (not that humans haven't done that anyway throughout history). My hope would be that we'd address the whole issue more reasonably.

In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.

It really boils down to the fact that many heteros have a visceral negative response to seeing same-sex behavior and want it closeted off and screened away by any means in order to further their own psychological comfort (no, they're not all closet homosexuals themselves, though a number are and are arguing against admitting such to themselves). That dynamic won't change, so neither will this debate.

[Xiahou]

In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.

It's not even that. Having a genetic predisposition to something still doesn't force others to approve of your behavior. What if arsonists were found to be born with that tendency? Would anyone think less of their behavior?

Furthermore, an innate instead of acquired trait would raise further questions- can it be screened for? Can it be cured? I really don't see how it would settle any part of the debate.

------
On the subject of the ruling- the more of it I read, the dumber I feel like it's making me. The opinion reads like it was written by the plaintiff. The judge ticks off an entire laundry list of "facts" that have no bearing on the decision and tries to use them to find in favor. Homosexuals can lover each other, they can raise children... who cares? The issue he was supposed to decide is whether or not Prop8 violates the US Constitution. Much of the ruling reads like it's more about justifying gay marriage than ruling on the constitutionality. It'd make more sense if he was trying to decide a case where the plaintiff was challenging a ruling allowing gay marriage, but that's not the case before him. Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides.

[Lemur]

Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides.

From what little I've read, it looks as though the defendants didn't really show up, hence the one-sided ruling. They promised something like twenty-two specific harms that same-sex marriage caused; they provided none. They promised expert testimony; they provided none. In judicial terms it was a no-show shut-out.

We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?

[Xiahou]

We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?

Write a sensible ruling.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Write a sensible ruling.

How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side? Make up valid points for the Proposition 8 legal team? That's not his job. His job is to rule in favor of the side with the most convincing argument, whether we like it or not Prop 8 failed to have a better argument (or in this case an argument going by the judge's 138 page report).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A reasonable question.

For me, it seems that most of the reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage in the USA objects for reasons that boil down to either moral traditionalism or religious convictions. It is my belief that, were it proven that being "gay" is an innate quality, that a goodly portion of the religious opposition and traditional opposition would have to re-think their whole attitude towards sexuality. Discriminating against a chosen behavior which you define as abhorent is more defensible -- in logical terms -- than is discrminating against an innate characteristic (not that humans haven't done that anyway throughout history). My hope would be that we'd address the whole issue more reasonably.

In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.

It really boils down to the fact that many heteros have a visceral negative response to seeing same-sex behavior and want it closeted off and screened away by any means in order to further their own psychological comfort (no, they're not all closet homosexuals themselves, though a number are and are arguing against admitting such to themselves). That dynamic won't change, so neither will this debate.

While I think that youy might, theoretically, have a point - I don't think it matters theologically for most religions. The "big three" all view the world and humanity as inherrently fallen and corrupted; ergo homosexuality is just another form of corruption.

Oh, and before all you "Liberals" jump down my throat, this is not my personal opinion, but my theological opinion with regard to others' opinions, ok?

[Lemur]

The "big three" all view the world and humanity as inherrently fallen and corrupted; ergo homosexuality is just another form of corruption.

Oh, and before all you "Liberals" jump down my throat, this is not my personal opinion, but my theological opinion with regard to others' opinions, ok?

Well, not every branch of Christianity believes in original sin, and I know not every Judaic tradition does so. Does Islam? I don't know. So no, on the face of it your statement is false, demonstrably false. Liberals, in quotes or out of them, have nothing to do with it. Not all of the big three believe that man is fallen.

[Crazed Rabbit]

From Orin Kerr, a blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy, comes the following question. The basis is that the right to gay marriage declared by the judge comes from 14th amendment, passed in the 1800s.

This is a follow-up to my post below on the reader polls about attitudes toward same-sex marriage. In the fourth of the four polls, I asked readers who think that the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage to say when the Constitution began to require it. Slightly more than half the readers who answered that poll answered that the requirement began before the year 1900.

Here’s a follow-up question, specifically address to readers who did or would answer the poll that way. Here’s the question: What conduct or statuses have not yet been recognized as protected by the Constitution; are in fact presently protected by the Constitution; and would trigger widespread shock among a wide range of the public today if they knew the Constitution protected it?

Here’s why I ask. One of the interesting aspects of saying that the Constitution required states to protect same-sex marriage before 1900 is the implication that the requirement existed back when the idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed utterly shocking. I gather the folks who believe that the same-sex marriage right existed back when it was shocking also believe that there are other rights that presently exist in the Constitution, currently unrecognized, that are as shocking to us today as same-sex marriage would have seemed in the 1700s or 1800s. My question is, what specifically are those other rights? Alternatively, are there no more presently-unrecognized rights in the Constitution — is the Constitution all tapped out rights-wise? Or perhaps those other rights are there, but we can’t see them yet — and if so, why can’t we see them?

Well?

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I gather the folks who believe that the same-sex marriage right existed back when it was shocking also believe that there are other rights that presently exist in the Constitution, currently unrecognized, that are as shocking to us today as same-sex marriage would have seemed in the 1700s or 1800s.

Where on earth does he gather that from? It doesn't follow.

Does he believe that womens voting and slavery being immoral would have been "shocking" back in the day? If so then he has the same "problem" he's babbling about here.