|
Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8
(03-05) 15:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready today to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Opinions? To be honest, I'm not surprised.
Sigh...
|
I recall something Obama said during the primaries. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in government. Rather, the government should just exclusively recognize civil unions (hetero or same sex) and simply leave the religious connotations out of it.
Honestly, it sickens me how easily it is for some people to deny the civil liberties of others who don't meet their own narrow religious ideals.
Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8
(03-05) 15:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready today to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Opinions? To be honest, I'm not surprised.
Depressing, but not surprising.
Makes me happy to be living in Massachusetts.
- Ashavan
|
I recall something Obama said during the primaries. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in government. Rather, the government should just exclusively recognize civil unions (hetero or same sex) and simply leave the religious connotations out of it.
That's about my opinion. Let everyone enjoy the legal benefits (and the accompanying right to be miserable) equally.
It's sad that with our country facing some really horrible economic issues that people still feel the need to deny others the right to whatever happiness they can find. This and flag burning have got to be two of the most asinine issues, diverting valuable money and time away from more important debates like our government's profligate spending spree. Why anyone feels like it is their business to tell anyone else how to live their life is beyond me.
And it all boils down to semantics: Do you call a union a marraige or not? WHO THE F CARES? It ain't your business, it doesn't affect you. Does a same-sex marraige somehow cheapen your marital relationship? Bullhockey. You don't like it tell your priest/preacher/rabbi/imam you don't want it codified in your place of worship. Simple as that. Leave the government out of it. They have more important things to worry about right now.
|
|
It's even sillier because, according to one blogger (so take with a metric ton of salt), California already grants civil partnerships the same rights as marriage.
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
If that's the case, all this fuss is being caused over using a word for something . Good grief. If it's got the same rights and responsibilities, calling it something different is just asinine, especially as everybody will colloquially refer to it as marriage anyway.
But then, I generally agree with my monkey colleague above on this subject.
This is all somehow Tom Hanks’ fault.
|
|
Regardless of how you feel about Prop. 8, everyone should be frightened by the fact that the California State Supreme Court thinks that it has the authority to uphold or strike down a Constitutional amendment. This is what they announced the moment that they decided to take this case. According to both the U.S. and California state Constitutions the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law under the guidance of the Constitution. Like it or not, and I don't, Prop. 8 passed and is now part of the State Constitution. The minute we set a precident of allowing a court to strike down a Constitutional ammendment under something as nebulous as the "document's core principle" is the minute we threaten the freedom of everyone in this country.
I have seen much worse miscarriages of justice. Anyways, I fail to see how a mainly religious thing had anything to do with law! This isn't 'separation between church and state'! The only reason it's a problem is a) people don't like people who are vastly different, or even slightly different, and b) religion. What the hell is wrong with people?
|
|
On a more humorous note. A few monthes back the first gay couple to marry in Massachussets sued to get gay marriage recognized as legal in Rhode Island, where they now live. The reason they wanted to have Rhode Island make gay marriage legal in the state was so they didn't have to move back to Boston to get a divorce. They lost the case and, as of the last time I heard, where still deciding whether to move back to get the divorce or not.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
1) It's a shame that some people feel they need the government to recognize their relationship.
2) There is no 'right' to marry. The government extends the privilege of recognizing a union to its people, subject to the qualifications that the government imposes. Part of those qualifications is that it is between two people, one man and one woman.
3) No one has been denied the privilege of marriage. Anyone, gay or straight may enter the contract with one (1) person of the opposite sex. Is the government discriminating against me because I can't quaify for maternity leave?
4) As has been pointed out, if the California Supremes were to void Prop 8, they've taken the power to themselves to alter the constitution as tehy see fit. As the court's stated task is to interpret the document, there's a contradiction there.
David and Matthew have a point. The majority of Californians have voted discrimination into their constitution. Is it really the court's job to overrule the people?
|
|
You're right, they have voted discrimination into their Constitution. With education, they could be convinced to vote it out again. But the moment that we allow them to take discrimination out of the Constitution without following the proper process is the day we allow them to start putting it in through the same way. If we allow this precident, then all it would take is nine black robed racists to decided that the 13th Amendment was not really in keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution and that it should be removed. Or that the 19th Amendment doesn't keep with original intent, so it has to go. The moment we give the Supreme Court the power to monkey around with the Constitution without the consent of the people to remove things we don't like, is the moment we give those people we don't like the same power to do things we would rather keep. I agree with Sir Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
|
|
Regardless of how you feel about Prop. 8, everyone should be frightened by the fact that the California State Supreme Court thinks that it has the authority to uphold or strike down a Constitutional amendment. This is what they announced the moment that they decided to take this case. According to both the U.S. and California state Constitutions the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law under the guidance of the Constitution. Like it or not, and I don't, Prop. 8 passed and is now part of the State Constitution. The minute we set a precident of allowing a court to strike down a Constitutional ammendment under something as nebulous as the "document's core principle" is the minute we threaten the freedom of everyone in this country.
I have no problem with this, may I remind you that in South Africa that Apartheid was part of their constitution and it was later ammended by the courts. In some cases it's justified.
|
|
You're right, they have voted discrimination into their Constitution. With education, they could be convinced to vote it out again. But the moment that we allow them to take discrimination out of the Constitution without following the proper process is the day we allow them to start putting it in through the same way. If we allow this precident, then all it would take is nine black robed racists to decided that the 13th Amendment was not really in keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution and that it should be removed. Or that the 19th Amendment doesn't keep with original intent, so it has to go. The moment we give the Supreme Court the power to monkey around with the Constitution without the consent of the people to remove things we don't like, is the moment we give those people we don't like the same power to do things we would rather keep. I agree with Sir Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
And by that logic we wouldn't have had the civil war because the south wasn't ready to give up slavery and it shouldn't have been forced on to their sensibilities.
But that's exactly why the US has different branches of govt. The checks and balances catch up in time. The judiciary isn't supposed to legislate, though they sometimes do when they evaluate the constitutionality of a law. Especially in context with state and federal constitutions. Situations are imperfect until the system addresses them.
There will be a voter amendment to overturn this new one. And it will likely succeed. This is a battle of immediate gratification.
Regardless of how you feel about Prop. 8, everyone should be frightened by the fact that the California State Supreme Court thinks that it has the authority to uphold or strike down a Constitutional amendment. This is what they announced the moment that they decided to take this case. According to both the U.S. and California state Constitutions the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law under the guidance of the Constitution. Like it or not, and I don't, Prop. 8 passed and is now part of the State Constitution. The minute we set a precident of allowing a court to strike down a Constitutional ammendment under something as nebulous as the "document's core principle" is the minute we threaten the freedom of everyone in this country.I have no problem with this, may I remind you that in South Africa that Apartheid was part of their constitution and it was later ammended by the courts. In some cases it's justified.
Just as ours 'allowed' slavery. Did the courts fix ours? They played a role, but didn't with a stroke of the pen.
|
|
And by that logic we wouldn't have had the civil war because the south wasn't ready to give up slavery and it shouldn't have been forced on to their sensibilities.You're right, they have voted discrimination into their Constitution. With education, they could be convinced to vote it out again. But the moment that we allow them to take discrimination out of the Constitution without following the proper process is the day we allow them to start putting it in through the same way. If we allow this precident, then all it would take is nine black robed racists to decided that the 13th Amendment was not really in keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution and that it should be removed. Or that the 19th Amendment doesn't keep with original intent, so it has to go. The moment we give the Supreme Court the power to monkey around with the Constitution without the consent of the people to remove things we don't like, is the moment we give those people we don't like the same power to do things we would rather keep. I agree with Sir Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Not the case at all. The South attempted to secced from the Union, which is unconstitutional, and then engaged in armed rebellion by attacking Fort Sumter. The Civil War, in the beginning, had nothing to do with slavery, it had everything to do with preserving the Union. And standing up for something you believe in and try to convince others to feel the same way is a noble thing. Taking power that doesn't exist and giving it to people who have no accountability is not. If we give the power to rewrite our Constitution to nine unelected judges who are appointed for life, we have at best created an oligarchy, and at worst created a dictatorship. Rule by the few, for the good of the many of course, has not worked out well when it has been tried. One needs only look at the history of the 20th Century to realize that.
It's a shame that California voters voted in Prop. 8, codifying pernicious prejudice to their constitution. It's a dark stain on their history.
It's a shame the courts are intervening, further muddying the separation of governing powers. It's a bad precedent.
It's a shame that people continue to fiddle on this subject while Washington burns. Who can marry whom will seem like small potatoes when the banking system starts to really collapse.
It's a shame that government is even getting involved in people's marital unions anyway. They should just issue a governmental certificate of union for legality's sake to everyone and leave the 'marraige' issue to whatever denomination wants to do a religious ceremony. If two consenting adults wish to get married, heck if a group of consenting adults want to get married all together, let 'em do it. None of my business, none of YOUR business.
My 2 CP
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have no problem with this, may I remind you that in South Africa that Apartheid was part of their constitution and it was later ammended by the courts. In some cases it's justified.
Jeremy, so if the courts decided that the 'common defense' clause of the US constitution required you to spend the rest of your days in a 10X10 room, guarding a pie, because it was 'a core principal' but due process, crual and unusual punishment, and other freedoms aren't, you'd have no problem with it?
It's an extreme example, but what I, and I assume Dave, fear.
1) Well we can't let you organize a petition to address the government, because it interferes with the method of determining court justices
2) We're banning guns in the name of common defense, so there will be no domestic threats
3) To regulate Commerce, we're parking a Border Patron division in your living room, please keep them fed.
4) You might be an enemy of the state, so we're reading your e-mail.
Etc.
This is what happens when the courts grant/seize the ability to evaluate parts of the constitution being valid and others aren't.
|
|
Executive Branch • Judicial Branch • Legislative Branch
They balance each other out. (Or they are supposed to)
Voting Prop 8 into the Constitution is fine but the Judicial branch is there to do their job since the voters do not know what is constitutional or discriminatory.
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so. But they wanted to get their few voted in. They had more money and a bigger media frenzy in the last couple of weeks that swayed the uneducated and lazy voters into voting what they wanted them to vote. Most of the ads in this campaign were out right lies, but they were on the billboards so they must be right. People got swayed by the media frenzy.
It just sicken me.
|
|
It's a shame that people continue to fiddle on this subject while Washington burns. Who can marry whom will seem like small potatoes when the banking system starts to really collapse.
The problem is that I don't see Washington D.C. or the banking system melting down any time soon. Yesterday on the news they were saying the Dow was at it lowest point in 12 years. Okay that means that in 1997 things were the same as they are today and as I recall people thought that we were doing pretty good. I also remember in 1998 when unemployment dipped below 8% for the first time since the 1970's, people talked about how dangerous to the economy it was to have such low unemployment.
Every week I turn on the Sunday morning show and here Democrats talking about how we need to go back to the Clinton economic policies so we can revive the Clinton economy. Well guess what, we have the Clinton economy right now. But in our short sighted, chicken little mentality, we have decided that if things are not constantly moving forward then it is a disaster.The market has always had cycles. It has also started back up and recovered every time it slowed down. Do we have to buckle down and make some wise and informed decisions? Of course, but I didn't become a millionare when the market was up, and I'm not headed for the poor house now.
The people who are going to succeed and survive in this downturn are the people who view this as an opportunity. After the Great Depression, not a single company that had been number one in 1929 was number one in 1939. The companies who thrived were the ones who put money into advertising, even though they new no one had money to buy their products. Optimists are the ones who are going to survive.
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so. But they wanted to get their few voted in. They had more money and a bigger media frenzy in the last couple of weeks that swayed the uneducated and lazy voters into voting what they wanted them to vote. Most of the ads in this campaign were out right lies, but they were on the billboards so they must be right. People got swayed by the media frenzy.
Ahh, politics... Or should I say, Uggh, politics.
|
|
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so.
Why did they have no buisness donating to a cause that they believed in. Many non-California opponents of Prop 8 also donated money, time, and other resources to get out the vote efforts as well. The coalition supporting Prop 8 was a diverse one, despite the fact that people seem to like picking on the LDS Church. According to CNN there were even groups of homosexuals supporting Prop 8. You can't just pin this on one group. And you can't say that the other guys had no buisness getting involved because they are from out of state when the side you support also was getting support from "outsiders."
|
Why did they have no buisness donating to a cause that they believed in. Many non-California opponents of Prop 8 also donated money, time, and other resources to get out the vote efforts as well. The coalition supporting Prop 8 was a diverse one, despite the fact that people seem to like picking on the LDS Church. According to CNN there were even groups of homosexuals supporting Prop 8. You can't just pin this on one group. And you can't say that the other guys had no buisness getting involved because they are from out of state when the side you support also was getting support from "outsiders."
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so.
yes but that is what people do..... Oh wait I told myself I would give up political rants for Lent.
|
|
yes but that is what people do..... Oh wait I told myself I would give up political rants for Lent.Why did they have no buisness donating to a cause that they believed in. Many non-California opponents of Prop 8 also donated money, time, and other resources to get out the vote efforts as well. The coalition supporting Prop 8 was a diverse one, despite the fact that people seem to like picking on the LDS Church. According to CNN there were even groups of homosexuals supporting Prop 8. You can't just pin this on one group. And you can't say that the other guys had no buisness getting involved because they are from out of state when the side you support also was getting support from "outsiders."
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so.
Why did they have no buisness donating to a cause that they believed in. Many non-California opponents of Prop 8 also donated money, time, and other resources to get out the vote efforts as well. The coalition supporting Prop 8 was a diverse one, despite the fact that people seem to like picking on the LDS Church. According to CNN there were even groups of homosexuals supporting Prop 8. You can't just pin this on one group. And you can't say that the other guys had no buisness getting involved because they are from out of state when the side you support also was getting support from "outsiders."
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so.
Cases in point - money to support stem cell research or legalize marijuana in MI coming from outside of MI. (These are just examples of how it works. Feel free to like/dislike, but it's political reality.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Executive Branch • Judicial Branch • Legislative Branch
They balance each other out. (Or they are supposed to)
Voting Prop 8 into the Constitution is fine but the Judicial branch is there to do their job since the voters do not know what is constitutional or discriminatory.
Didn't we fight a revolution to get away from people who 'know better than we do'? The Judicial Branch is to look at the Constitution as a whole, Prop 8 is part of the whole. Therefore...
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so. But they wanted to get their few voted in. They had more money and a bigger media frenzy in the last couple of weeks that swayed the uneducated and lazy voters into voting what they wanted them to vote. Most of the ads in this campaign were out right lies, but they were on the billboards so they must be right. People got swayed by the media frenzy.It just sicken me.
*nods* Those ads where the Mormon Missionaries are breaking into the sweet lesbian couple's home and ransacking it were indeed sick.
And it's amazing how influentual the Mormons were over the blacks and Hispanics.
|
|
While I don't know much about your state constitution, and up here we have a slightly different view of the role of judicial review in interpreting the constitution and separation of powers it seems to me like the court is doing its job and respecting its role.
From the article:
"The people established the Constitution. As judges, our power is very limited."
- Justice Joyce Kennard
"Is it for this court to limit the people's power to amend the Constitution?"
- Chief Justice Ronald George
Sounds like they know their place and about the separation of powers.
They had more money and a bigger media frenzy in the last couple of weeks that swayed the uneducated and lazy voters into voting what they wanted them to vote.
I love how individuals who can't get what they want insult the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that "marriage" should be kept as a religious word and not a legal term is silly. There are all sorts of words that have civil legal definitions which are separate from the myriad religious definitions based on religious law.
What about the word "adult"? There are all sorts of religions whose coming-of-age ceremonies declare someone an adult before their eighteenth birthday--the current legal definition of adult in the US.
Church law and civil law have used the same terms for some time.
The problem with the “get government out of the marriage business” route, is that a “civil partnership” is NOT equality. The word “Marriage” has connotation, power. If you start issuing civil partnerships, then every married couple that wants legal standing must also apply for a civil partnership license.
It sickens me to watch a majority declare a minority group “deviant” and strip away their rights. If two consenting adults want to spend the rest of their lives in a loving, monogamous relationship, more power to them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The problem with the “get government out of the marriage business” route, is that a “civil partnership” is NOT equality. The word “Marriage” has connotation, power. If you start issuing civil partnerships, then every married couple that wants legal standing must also apply for a civil partnership license.
It sickens me to watch a majority declare a minority group “deviant” and strip away their rights. If two consenting adults want to spend the rest of their lives in a loving, monogamous relationship, more power to them.
And how are their rights to do that being 'stripped'?
|
|
The problem with the “get government out of the marriage business” route, is that a “civil partnership” is NOT equality. The word “Marriage” has connotation, power. If you start issuing civil partnerships, then every married couple that wants legal standing must also apply for a civil partnership license.
That is precisely why the government should get out of the marriage business.
It establishes the supremacy of the civil authority in all areas regarding domestic partnerings of any sort, as well as immunizing religions against government interference in determining how their sacraments are defined.Then when the First Church of Butt-Buddies declares they will only perform same-sex marriages and will never recognize opposite sex marriages, any other church that wants to file suit in court claiming a violation of their religious rights can be told to sod off in short order.
If you start issuing civil partnerships, then every married couple that wants legal standing must also apply for a civil partnership license.
Isn't that what a marriage license is? I had to get mine from the county.
And how are their rights to do that being 'stripped'?
Because "Group A" gets free stuff for the same right. $5 says the next referendum removes the right to vote or own property from "the gays."
Isn't that what a marriage license is? I had to get mine from the county.
So did I, but the county has a habit of snubbing "Group B" out of marriage licenses, so you have to take them away from everyone if it's going to be fair. Let marriage be religious, but bereft of government status, if the word is what's holding things up.
That is precisely why the government should get out of the marriage business.
It establishes the supremacy of the civil authority in all areas regarding domestic partnerings of any sort, as well as immunizing religions against government interference in determining how their sacraments are defined.
Then when the First Church of b%*~-Buddies declares they will only perform same-sex marriages and will never recognize opposite sex marriages, any other church that wants to file suit in court claiming a violation of their religious rights can be told to sod off in short order.
I'm due for bed in ten minutes, which is probably why this isn't making any sense to me. Can you explain it from another angle?
Then when the First Church of b%%!-Buddies
*laughs* Sam, you do know the PC police on this board are going to be gunning after you for this don't you?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And how are their rights to do that being 'stripped'?Because "Group A" gets free stuff for the same right.
Isn't that what a marriage license is? I had to get mine from the county.So did I, but the county has a habit of snubbing "Group B" out of marriage licenses, so you have to take them away from everyone if it's going to be fair. Let marriage be religious, but bereft of government status, if the word is what's holding things up.
Please see my post above. How is a gay person unable to take advantage of the government recognizing the partnership between one man and one woman.
Also it's not a right, it's a privilege.
Isn't that what a marriage license is? I had to get mine from the county.So did I, but the county has a habit of snubbing "Group B" out of marriage licenses, so you have to take them away from everyone if it's going to be fair. Let marriage be religious, but bereft of government status, if the word is what's holding things up.
Then the argument comes full circle. The county can only 'snub' Group B if it is allowed to do so under the law. If that law withstands judicial constitutional review. Right or wrong. (And there are plenty I don't agree with, but right and wrong is my opinion of them.)
We've discussed plenty of examples of bad laws and the processes by which they can be/are changed.
|
|
I gave up beer myself.yes but that is what people do..... Oh wait I told myself I would give up political rants for Lent.Why did they have no buisness donating to a cause that they believed in. Many non-California opponents of Prop 8 also donated money, time, and other resources to get out the vote efforts as well. The coalition supporting Prop 8 was a diverse one, despite the fact that people seem to like picking on the LDS Church. According to CNN there were even groups of homosexuals supporting Prop 8. You can't just pin this on one group. And you can't say that the other guys had no buisness getting involved because they are from out of state when the side you support also was getting support from "outsiders."
We already know that many non-Californian mormon churches 'donated' money into the Prop 8 media campaign. They had no business doing so.
So what your saying is that you are drinking a large glass o' milk?
|
|
I love how individuals who can't get what they want insult the other side.
I'm not insulting the other side... there are people out there who are uneducated and lazy when it comes to voting. They do not read what the ballot measures are they just go by whatever they see on TV or hear on the radio... or they don't vote because they haven't read the measures. That is what I mean, I'm using adjectives not insulting people. I'm talking about people that I know.
|
|
*laughs* Sam, you do know the PC police on this board are going to be gunning after you for this don't you?
What is that phrase?
"Hyperbole to make a point."
If people still want to kvetch . . . *shrug*
Besides, I got it from a South Park episode.
Damn that Trey Parker!
I love how individuals who can't get what they want insult the other side.I'm not insulting the other side... there are people out there who are uneducated and lazy when it comes to voting. They do not read what the ballot measures are they just go by whatever they see on TV or hear on the radio... or they don't vote because they haven't read the measures. That is what I mean, I'm using adjectives not insulting people. I'm talking about people that I know.
Ok, fair enough. Being on the other side of this debate, I might have been looking into something that wasn't there.
|
|
I love how individuals who can't get what they want insult the other side.I'm not insulting the other side... there are people out there who are uneducated and lazy when it comes to voting. They do not read what the ballot measures are they just go by whatever they see on TV or hear on the radio... or they don't vote because they haven't read the measures. That is what I mean, I'm using adjectives not insulting people. I'm talking about people that I know.
What about people who are educated and intellegnet and yet still disagree?
What about people who are educated and intellegnet and yet still disagree?
They are straw men. :P
|
|
What about people who are educated and intellegnet and yet still disagree?
I put more 'weight' into what they have to say and how they vote then the lazy folk. I see too many people that expect to get everything from the gubment/process and not put any effort into it... it isn't hard to read a ballot measure and make an informed choice.