Proposition 8: Who Needs Civil Rights Anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

There are many, wonderful, valid questions about allowing a strict popular vote to change the state's constitution, especially considering that in the same state it takes a 2/3's super majority to raise taxes.

I agree with your discussion that, on the broader scale, it shouldn't be so much a legal issue, but the proponents used a legal mechanism as a sledgehammer for a social evolution they did not like. Civil rights do come into play when the majority uses their numbers to squash the minority, and that is exactly what did happen. They used a too-easy to amend constitution to make illegal what the state courts and legal system otherwise would not.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 19 Aug 2010, 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I want to know where this picture came from, who it pictures, what has been edited, and who edited it. Given that you risk slandering or mocking a group of people by posting it, you had better be really, really clear on exactly what it is.

And I want that information in your original post.

Actually, you are in error regarding the meaning of this phrase; however, as the judge pointed out, the relevant portion is in fact earlier in the 14th Amendment:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

State-recognized marriage is certainly among the "privileges and immunities" of citizens; denying it to a certain group for reasons which are valid only in the view of certain Abrahamic religions fails tests of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state of California is not permitted, by the Constitution of the United States, to pass laws denying privileges to any single group of citizens. (Neither is any other state, but California's in the crosshairs just now.)

Popularity amongst voters (the initiative process) does not, and cannot be permitted to, override the Constitution. It's there to protect everyone's rights, no matter how unpopular - yes, even thee and me. It may occasionally toss up something to which we personally object (I certainly don't like the idea of Nazis being permitted to march through Skokie, IL), but if we start letting one group's rights be abridged, eventually they'll work their way down to us. Imagine a world in which Aspies are not permitted to reproduce for eugenic reasons, and are required to drug themselves into submission and/or be locked up in institutions...

By the way, I note you later repeated a Fox News talking point claiming that the judge is himself homosexual. Given that to the best of my knowledge he has not made a statement one way or the other on this, I am left to ask - what is your evidence?

And why should it matter? Are judges in divorce cases required to have never married? Are traffic-court judges required to recuse themselves if they have ever gotten a ticket? Are female judges forbidden from ruling on matters relating to Title IX cases?

The First Amendment is a limitation on the powers of Congress. It says nothing about what the States are allowed or not allowed to do. The First Amendment does not forbid a State from establishing a religion.

ruveyn

I would ask you to PROVE that using something OUTSIDE this clearly liberal judge in California.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to weigh in on the matter of marriage.

We have standing law outlawing bigamy (marriage to more than one spouse) and polygamy (marriage to multiple wives). These have withstood the test of time again and again in courts of law.

How does "gay marriage" differentiate from these standing constitutionally-valid restrictions of the "right" of marriage?

1st Amendment - Freedom of religion (relevant part). No religion recognizes homosexual marriage, and the claim of a church that holds otherwise is not being argued before the court.

14th Amendment - "Gay marriage" from one state must be legally valid in other states. No such animal. Massachusetts has same sex marriage and there has been no requirement for states that to not allow same sex marriage to legally recognize those marriages.





As you can see, this is a powder keg issue. There has been a long-standing right of the state to restrict who can and cannot marry. Same sex marriage is about as revolutionary a concept as you can create. If marriage is defined as a federal constitutional right, then what basis is there to deny marriage to someone who wants to practice polygamy? How is one man with multiple wives (or vice-versa) a meaningful difference between two men or two women marrying? Why not allow minors to marry? We do often require an age of 18 (sometimes younger with parental consent), but heck, history shows that people married as young as 13 as a matter of common practice. Statutory rape is the crime of consensual sex with a minor because we see having relations with someone under 18 as "criminal" but nobody can make a case that being under 18 means you can't decide that you want to have sex of your own free will.

The courts know full well this is not just a legal question, it is a social and moral question, and if they decide to establish that same sex marriage is a legal right, then every prohibition existing in marriage laws will be up for challenge and the case to uphold them will be much tougher.

That's not correct. States can offer more protection, but never less.

If an individual state established a religion, it would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's anti-establishment clause. Just as the federal government cannot establish a state religion, the individual states likewise are prohibited from doing so.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone cares about same-sex marriage either way. Two unmarried gay guys can live in the same house and do gay stuff anyway. What's the big deal?

Gay marriage is a distraction from our real problems.

Zero, are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Supreme Court cannot rule on the Constitutionality of a law until a suit is brought before it; the suit usually has to wend its way through lower courts first (as the Prop 8 mess is doing now - first Federal District Court, now Ninth Circuit, then on the the Supremes). The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is clearly in violation of Article IV, Section 1 ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State" - state-recognized marriage is clearly a "public Act" and "Record" of the state of origin, thus all other states are required to recognize it, else someone married in, say, Washington [age of consent 16] could potentially be prosecuted for statutory rape in Arizona [age of consent 18]). Until someone with standing to do so (that is to say, someone married in, say, Massachusetts, whose marriage is not being honored in, say, Alabama) brings suit, the law will not be ruled upon, any more than the Supreme Court dealt with miscegenation laws before the Lovings filed suit against Virginia in 1967 for refusing to consider them married (he was black, she was white; that was illegal in Virginia then). The miscegenation laws in Virginia and seventeen other states were unconstitutional before then, but since the Supremes had not yet ruled, this fact could be ignored.

Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional - but until the Supreme Court rules on the question, the state of California can have its unconstitutional law on its books. (South Carolina still outlawed interracial marriage as late as 2000; they just stopped enforcing the law in '67.)

Your argument reminds me of people who claim that the US Air Force is unconstitutional because the Constitution only gives Congress authority to raise an army and a navy, and aircraft aren't mentioned anywhere...

the SCOTUS has consistently interpreted the 1st ammendment as applying at every level, from city councils that want to pray during their meetings, to courthouses that display the 10 commandments, to schools that offer bible study for credit; it has not upheld the 1st ammendment in the pledge of allegiance or in religious statements on our federally produced currency.

I agree with you that the wording applies to congress, but in practice you're wrong.

The precedents of the SCOTUS clearly agree with this judge; it will be interesting to see if the supreme court as it currently stands will once again fly in the face of both precedent and sense in order to make a short-term conservative political point.

The site tag on the image is from a network of meme-generating image macro sites that are unlikely to provide any provenance, but I managed to track down another instance of the same image here: http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/ ... e-can.html and it doesn't appear that any editing took place. Widespread black support for Proposition 8 is well documented (70% of black voters backed it), as is black opposition to gay rights in general and I don't think posting that picture with that caption is at all out of line given the intrinsic irony of that position vis a vis civil rights. Frankly, I think you're reaching a bit on this one, posting a politically charged image to this board doesn't normally require that sort of documentation, and I doubt even the most torturous reading of the rules would advocate that.

Somehow I doubt that the people in the picture knowingly put their image on top of the words, "who needs civil rights, anyway." Someone cut and pasted. Is there permission for that? Are we legally in a position to use that image, in that case? I have to sign waivers for my kid's pictures to appear on a school website, or even in a student teacher video taken for experience documentation, and that waiver does not extend beyond the original use. Are you sure we have a legal right to use that picture on this website?

(you are right, I did not say that the first time ... I just knew it really bothered me and figured I should ask some questions as a result; I've narrowed down the reasons better since)

^

Under public use doctrine, I think the web site is pretty in the clear on the pictures, they obvious came from a political rally held in public, no expectation of privacy exists.

What's the big deal? According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges

1,138. Not the least of which include things like:

-Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
-Right to inheritance of property
-Making spousal medical decisions
-Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

And the list goes on and on.

Tell me how you would feel if you got told that you weren't allowed to visit your other half while they were laying in a hospital bed, dying? It happens, all the time.

So maybe it isn't important to a heterosexual married couple, who take these rights and privileges for granted-- but to a gay couple? Believe me, it's pretty goddamn important. And I know this in my heart because I am one half of a gay couple (and have been for 9 years).

Oh, and by the way. We're getting "married" next spring. In a church (contrary to popular belief, not every christian church out there goes "ZOMG DON'T LET THE FAGS MARRY!!11!!one!!"). It just won't be recognized by New York State, or the Federal Govt.

No. I understand that the Supreme Court can not rule until a case is brought before it, yet, AGAIN, polygamy and bigamy are illegal and this hold up under legal attempts to reverse it. DOMA has been upheld and don't tell me that NOBODY has challenged/is challenging it.

You claim Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The final word has not come down on that, and the ruling so far was issued by a judge who clearly had a conflict of interest...never mind that the 9th Judicial Circuit is renowned for taking legal positions most of America (and the U.S. Supreme Court) does not adhere to.

I don't know which way this matter will end, but if they legalize same sex marriage, then polygamy must be legalized because there is no basis to ban one but not the other.

HOW DO GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DEFEND SAME SEX MARRIAGE BUT UPHOLD THE BANNING OF POLYGAMY? HOW DO THEY DISTINGUISH THE TWO PRACTICES SO THAT STANDING LAW AGAINST ONE DOESN'T APPLY AGAINST THE OTHER?

People can say this is crazy talk, but I know the agenda of the Gay Rights Movement from over 15 years ago, and I know it has not changed.

This isn't about the right to marry...it's about forcing everyone to legitimize a practice whether they believe in it or not.

If same sex marriage is legalized on a federal level, YOU WILL SEE the following happen in due time.

1. A push to force others to recognize same sex marriage as legitimate. People who believe via moral conviction that it is sin and offensive to God will be forced to grant legal status a practice they find repulsive. Right now, a private employer does not have to extend benefits to same sex partners or unmarried cohabitants. This will change that. Private landlords will be forced to rent to gay couples even if they don't accept federal funding (the hitch normally used to compel private parties to do something they otherwise do not agree with).

2. A push to force churches that believe same sex marriage is sin to perform ceremonies.

3. A push to silence teaching that same sex marriage is sin.

It isn't about the right to marry. It's about a tool to compel people to either support the situation or shut up.

I'm certain not every gay person is looking at it this way, but make no mistake that those who are the most militant (who frequently drive the movement's agenda) are looking long-term and realize every step forward they make opens the door for the steps planned after it. There is nothing on a federal level establishing gay orientation as a "right." Same sex marriage would be a massive political victory for the movement's agenda, and make no mistake that there are plenty of people waiting for the door to open so they can push many more aspects of their agenda.

In spite of the concept of "freedom of religion" the Gay Rights Movement ultimately wants no expression that looks at the homosexual lifestyle in a negative light. If it must be silenced by force, that is perfectly acceptable to them.

As much as I am libertarian and favor strict construction of the Constitution, I pragmatically know you can't be tolerant of people who would deny others the right to believe or live as they choose. Likewise, you can not wait until the enemy is at your door to take steps to stop the aggression. There is no real "hidden" agenda here. It's pretty open (even if not openly declared at every opportunity).

You can't possibly be serious. Not about the right to marry? The fight to win the right to marry isn't about the right to marry? You're damn skippy this is crazy talk.

1) This isn't a push to force people to grant legal status to a practice they find repulsive. This is a push to force GOVERNMENT to grant legal status to a minority. And what does gay marriage possibly have to do with forcing employers to extend benefits to unmarried cohabitants?? And there are already private landlords who rent to gay couples, without any government coercion-- we don't live in cardboard boxes on the street you know. They even let us buy houses (wow!)

2) We don't need to force churches to perform ceremonies, there are already *plenty* of churches that will do it willingly, without requiring threats at gunpoint from us fags. Fact. I mentioned in an earlier post of mine in this thread that my partner and I are getting married next spring. IN A CHURCH. Not every sect of Christianity believes as yours does.

3) The bible says that buttsex is a sin. Doesn't make one mention of two guys getting hitched at all-- you better have a closer look at it.

And as for the rest of your arguments: I, as a gay man, couldn't possibly care less of about how much you, or any other person disapproves of my lifestyle. And despite what you clowns on the right think, homosexuality isn't a choice. Did you choose to be straight? We have been around for as long as humans have been around, and we're going to be here until humans go extinct.

And since you all like to think that god made us all the way we are, and that god hates fags, tell me-- why do gays even exist?

All I want are the 1138 rights and responsibilities that you heterosexuals take for granted. I don't want your approval. You can keep it.



Oh, and by the way, that little gem officially marks you as a hypocrite.