Prop 8 upheld: Seriously California, I expected better from you.

[FuLLBLeeD]

This is so dumb. I didn't know you could vote on human rights.

Are we going to make gay people use separate restrooms and water fountains too?

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is "a lifestyle choice" or thinks it somehow violates the sanctity of marriage is an idiot and a bigot. I really hate my country sometimes.

 

[TWD]

This is so dumb. I didn't know you could vote on human rights.

I think this is where you just have to get used to it because this is the way it's always been. We had to vote to instate those rights into our constitution in the first place didn't we? I believe that human rights are god given, and exist in and of themselves. However, we still have to figure out what those rights are, and there might be instances where we are wrong. The hope with democracy is that our constitution simply makes it so that the people are never able to make the wrong decision decision. A quick look at our history proves that this simply isn't the case.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

something I've been wrestling with is the argument of allowing any type of marriage. Triads, polygamy etc... I don't agree with those, nor think it's a constitutional right. That said, I do support gay marriage. Anyone care to tackle that?

The easiest and most correct answer is to eliminate any and all legal benefits associated with marriage. What consenting adults do with each other is none of anyone else's business. If three people decide they love each other and move into the same house, they are doing nothing that harms anyone else. The only real logical argument that can be levelled against it is abuse of the allowance of such polygamous relations to obtain legal benefits by gaming the system -- the elimination of those benefits immediately removes this concern.

 

[Sjosz]

Hyru, get to da choppa!

A sad day for a country that supposedly prides itself so much on its freedom.

 

[Kazimira]

What I dont get is the fact Marrage is mainly a relegious thing. State tries to stay out of relegous things right? Then why is it still saying who marries or who doesnt?

Woudnt it be better to completely remove marrage and have instead leagal papers for who gets hospital visitation rights and cival partnerships between anyone old enough and anyone old enough then leave the rest of it like who's actulay 'married' up to the relegion that beleves in it. That way relegions alone deal with that issue and how it fits in to thair beliefs.

You Americans have a better chance of haveing a free contry without relegion messing with the rights of the non relegious than England though. A church of england bishop for hust havieng his post is a redgestra(able to leagaly marry a cople. Yet anyone else who wants to do the job needs to do a corse, get training and apply for it.

 

[Angel_Mapper]

The easiest and most correct answer is to eliminate any and all legal benefits associated with marriage.

Woudnt it be better to completely remove marrage and have instead leagal papers for who gets hospital visitation rights and cival partnerships between anyone old enough and anyone old enough ...

Kind of hard to get the peanut butter back out of the chocolate.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

That hardship is a small price to pay to get the **** out of the pie.

 

[SlayerDragon]

The voters of California have constitutional rights to amend their constitution (how's that for paradoxical ), and the courts have NO right to overrule the people's amendment. If they could, what checks and balances would there be on the judicial system?

P.S: Judicial hacks pissed in my popcorn. . . Though I have to wonder why you automatically assume I'm the angry guy, if I oppose the liberal-totalitarian-judiciary viewpoint. Interesting.

Methinks you ought to re-read the section in your government book about the purpose and function of the judicial branch.

I don't assume you're the angry guy, your posts tend to convey that quite well, thank you.

 

[hyrulian]

Just a quick note, I changed my thread title to be a bit less harsh...

 

[Crotale]

About the legality of Proposition 8 as an amendment, here is an interesting read, if you will.

 

[Sjosz]

Just a quick note, I changed my thread title to be a bit less harsh...

No need! The anger must be shown!

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

A sad day for a country that supposedly prides itself so much on its freedom.

In America, everyone can enjoy a happy new life with equal rights for all.

Except blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, gay's, women, Muslims, um... everybody that's not a white man. And I mean white, white. No Italians, no Polish, just people from Ireland, England and Scotland. But only certain parts of Scotland and Ireland. Just full-blooded whites.

No, you know what? Not even whites. Nobody gets any rights.
Yeah. America.

 

[N1ghtmare]

The voters of California have constitutional rights to amend their constitution (how's that for paradoxical ), and the courts have NO right to overrule the people's amendment. If they could, what checks and balances would there be on the judicial system?

P.S: Judicial hacks pissed in my popcorn. . . Though I have to wonder why you automatically assume I'm the angry guy, if I oppose the liberal-totalitarian-judiciary viewpoint. Interesting.

Just like the voters of the south had the constitutional right to prevent the desegregation of public schools! The US supreme court had no right to overrule and force segregation, and the president had no right to federalize the national guard.

Those judges who ruled in Brown vs Board of Education are clearly totalitarian liberals.

 

[Kazimira]

Kind of hard to get the peanut butter back out of the chocolate.

But does that give anyone the right to call it just choclate?

The state has a hand in marrage a relegious thing. It cant say it tries to stay out of relegious affairs if it still inerupts things like giveing some people basic freedom.

I just cant stand things like this when one thing is said and another is done.

 

[Angel_Mapper]

I'm just saying. The only route is gay marriage, not getting marriage out of government. That would be practically impossible.

 

[Dark Pulse]

If it makes Hyru feel better, NY State's Governor (Paterson) has sponsored a gay marriage bill, and it did pass a bipartisan state assembly by a fairly large vote. (89-52) It's got fairly strong support and it's more or less expected to pass. I do believe we recognize out-of-state marriages as legal, if they were legal in the state the persons got married in. Most people support it by margins of around 55-60% for and 35-40% against, except for... wait for it...

REPUBLICANS!!!

They naturally oppose it by about 55% to 35%. Support is strongest in Metropolitan NYC and Rochester; it's pretty split elsewhere.

 

[BillyBadAss]

If I was gay, I would be moving out of California. There are other states where gay marriage is legal now, and from my experience southern California is full of idiots.

 

[Angel_Mapper]

Most people support it by margins of around 55-60% for and 35-40% against, except for... wait for it...

REPUBLICANS!!!

And blacks, which is ****ing ironic.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Time for the confligratory point of view.

I don't see it happening. For a few reasons.

1: Like it or not homosexuality is viewed as a mental illlness and the legal system is generally very hesitant to do anything that could be construed as validating the continuation of said mental illness. Though only a complete @$$hat would label a homosexual mentally ill. As that implies they need locked in rubber room by the common conception of mental illnesses.

and

2: Marriage itself is a religeous institution. So techniclly they can't deny the 'right' to get married. Because in one sense their is no such thing. Additionally most religons condem homosexuality so finding 1 to perform the marriage could be difficult. The goverment can deny you the legal end of things which is essentially a civil union. The question their is why would they.

 

[Poker]

I think this is where you just have to get used to it because this is the way it's always been.

Said the { plantation owner to the sharecropper | patriarch to the woman | aristocrat to the pauper | Pharaoh to the Hebrew | ... }.



By any honest interpretation of what human rights are and ought to be, cries of "majority rules" are invalid on their face when applied to cases involving an oppressible minority. When a law treads on basic constitutional principles like equality, it is the very function of the courts to strike it down. That's not "activism", it's their constitutionally defined job. Indeed, it is precisely these cases for which Supreme Courts were invented, to act as the nation's/state's conscience in lieu of the will of a potentially oppressive majority.

Otherwise why bother with courts at all—why not just dress every damned dispute in the docket in a proposition and put it up to popular vote, so that every rash, ill-informed, impressionable fool with a prejudice can stick their nose in an issue?