Proposition 8 In California Overturned: Do You Agree?

[Deexter Jorgan]

People complain about Muslim countries such as Afghanistan letting culture and so called religious beliefs define how laws should be governed, but it's blatent discrimination, A woman was sentenced to be stoned to death after she approached the police about being raped.

Reason, well they said that she shouldn't have been near men who werent her husband, it's the same thing with Proposition 8 you'r allowing religious nuts and homophobs to govern a person's right to marry which is morally and ethically wrong, I don't claim to be someone who preaches for the gay lifestyle but everyone should be allowed to live life without discrimination, the state has the right to overturn this mockery of a decision.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'm glad Prop 8 was overturned because it was a violation of human rights just like the Arizona immigration bill was violation of human rights as well. This is a Supreme Court issue which should be decided on so that all states could have or not have gay marriage. It doesn't make sense that only a few states can have same sex marriage and others can't. The same can be said about marijuana use which is another topic altogether. Two men or Two women should have the same rights to be married and be happy or unhappy like a man and a woman.

As far as the voter's rights being overturned, human rights shouldn't be voted on in the first place. If Americans had their say back in the 40s and the 60s then black and Jewish people wouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote or to serve in the military either. We would still be segregated if it was up to democracy. Democracy shouldn't be used to vote on human rights. Any man or woman should have the right in America to vote, work, and marry anyone despite their race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Some outraged voters bring God get into this situation. Why would God outlaw gay marriage or hate others? Doesn't it say to Love Thy Neighbor? If Homosexuality is a sin and an "abomination" then why did God create homosexuals to begin with?
Hopefully in due time no one will be discriminated against, but its still a long road ahead.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Actually, while i disagree with Proposition 8, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to my knowledge, as states have the right to manage their own marriage laws, which is why the Federal gov't can't make any laws regarding marriage. I have to say that while it is fucked up law, it would stand because the federal govt, supreme court included, couldn't say a thing about it. People will eventually come around on the issue of Gay Marriage, forcing people to accept it isn't going to work.

But you're wrong. I've already stated, in this thread, that the 14th Amendment prevents any government from putting a ban on gay marriage simply because marriage offers federal tax benefits to married couples.

This is still a democracy, and people just can't overturn things they don't like. Putting it up to a vote again would be perfectly fine, however throwing it out because they disagree further defeats the purpose of voting. Why vote when politicians can make our decisions for us?

This argument is literally on my last fucking nerve. Did you know that the constitution and the government are in place because the people in general can't be trusted, probably because they're fucking stupid in mass? Do you understand that the majority would love to be living in a theocratic state? Did you know that the majority of people wanted to keep slavery around, and it being outlawed was one of the reasons they went to war against their own people?

Fuck the people. They have no business deciding what people get to do in their private lives anyway.

 

[Razor]

1) Annonymous Mozz is right. The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution requires the government to, essentially, give all services provided by such to anyone no matter what. They can't block Social Security payments based on race, color, age, or sexuality. Or handicap, or a list of other stuff. But still.

Sorry. I sort of lean with Tdigs that marriage is not a universal right. But when it is offered as a service by the government, it falls under the Equal Protection clause. If government were to get rid of marriage, then you would have another argument.

----

We have a new development in this story. The Proposition 8 ruling may be blocked from appeal by a matter of law.

In the United States Justice System, the only people who may appeal a ruling are the two arguing parties. It's to keep Sally Do-Wright from appealing a murderer's conviction. She has no legal standing to do so, especially when the Prosecutor is always the State of ____.

But anyway, yeah. The main issue arises from this. The governor and attorney general of California refuse to defend the law or appeal the judge's decision. The plantiffs, two same-sex couples who brought forth the appeal in the first place, are definitely not appeal the Judge's ruling.

The only people left, you would think, are ProtectMarriage.com, the group that Judge Walker allowed to defend the law on behalf of the Governor when he refused to commit state resources to the defense.

Now ProtectMarriage.com wants to mount a defense. Only, they have no legal standing to do so. The defendants are, listed by name exactly, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown. Without ProtectMarriage.com convincing Brown that their lives face irreparable harm over the ruling, the overturning of Prop 8 stands.

And the Ninth Circuit/Supreme Court won't have to rule a thing.

 

[Slyfox696]

My issue here is simple: the people originally voted against it. The idea of a democracy is to let the voices of the people be heard. They were heard here but the ruling was overturned anyway. The content of the bill doesn't matter. It's that the people voted one way but it's just been decided that that's not what we're going to do so the minority gets their choice. That's never made sense to me at all and doesn't here.

To me, this is what makes this case so challenging. Our country was founded upon democracy and the overturning of a public vote goes against the very essence of that democracy.

Then again, George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, despite losing the popular vote. So I guess we can't say our democracy has ever been truly held sacred.

Well, that shouldnt mean SHIT in a cases of human rights, man.

If we put it to a vote in fucking Alabama that we should bring back Slavery, and it passed, it would be ok to do that? If we voted on child molestation to be legal in Mighigan and it passed, that would be ok? Like fuck it would.

Slavery no, but child molestation, from a legal standpoint, yes.

Obviously that would never pass, but in a hypothetical world, if a state decided a 45 year old man could have sex with a "consenting" 9 year old girl, the state should have that right. It wouldn't mean it would be morally right, but it would legally. The difference in the gay marriage case is that we're getting into legal rights, not just cases of morality.

I always thought it was wrong to deny anyone they're basic human rights,including the right to be married.In a church.

Marriage in a church is not a human right, it's a privilege granted by the church. Homosexual people have ZERO right to be married by a church, and even they would admit that when you get right down to it.

However, the problems come in when you start granting those marriages from a church certain legal benefits you do not grant homosexuals who engage in civil unions. That's when it becomes an issue of inequality.

Who gives a shit if the people voted for it?

Well, me, for example. What your sentence suggests takes our country down a very dangerous road. If we no longer care what the people vote for, then we might as well throw our Constitution out the window, because it would no longer be necessary.

In my opinion, you're dealing with two VERY morally important ideals here. You're dealing with equality for all individuals, but you're also dealing with the very existence and foundation of our country, and this time, they are in conflict with each other.

Appeal it to the Supreme Court. The ruling will stand.

Not necessarily, and that's the part that scares me the most. Human rights is a big part of our Constitution, but so is the very idea of our democracy. And with the obviously political Supreme Court we have, which leans to the right (usually by a vote of 5-4), I honestly have no idea how they would rule on this matter. I would HOPE they would strike it down as unconstitutional, but in doing so, would basically legalize homosexual marriage throughout the country, thereby potentially overstepping their own bounds of authority.

I don't think this is as clear as you seem to.

This shouldn't have gone to a vote in the first place.

I agree completely. But it did, and now the matter becomes quite murky.

This is another good argument for the separation of church and state. I agree with NorCal too, since coming out against child molestation, slavery and the stoning of women doesn't (or shouldn't) have any basis in a person's religious beliefs.

On the other hand, the issue of same-sex marriage does often concern what people claim is being told to them by God.

Personally, I don't want to be governed by someone else's religious beliefs. Placing a proposition like this before the general public is a dangerous step.

Who said this was a religious law? I know atheists who are against gay marriage. That fact alone prohibits this from being seen as a religious law.

Uh, when did marriage become a fundamental human right? Also, comparing a ban against same-sex marriage to slavery and child molestation is laughable, if not straight-up ignorant.

Not really, in both cases, it's an example of equality being protected by our country.

YES, it is unfair to deny same-sex couples the various tax benefits that are given to married, heterosexual couples. However, getting married in a place of your choosing is a privilege, not a right. I'm not against gay civil unions, or even gay marriage per se, but I am against a government mandate requiring churches to marry same-sex couples.

I agree with just about everything you said there. However, you left out one VERY important point.

"I'm FOR removing all governmental privileges to married couples, and instead, bestowing upon all government recognized unions the same rights and benefits for every couple joined under the law".

Basically, if we're only going to recognize civil unions under the law for homosexuals, we should only recognize civil unions under the law for heterosexuals, and grant each party the same rights as the other. This way government doesn't dictate religion, and religion doesn't dictate government, a true separation of church and state.

Given the indirect government funding churches get through tax-exemption status, what's to say that this status can't be yanked the first time that they decide to deny a same-sex couple services based on their religious beliefs (a freedom clearly protected under the First Amendment)?

So what?

If the government yanks tax-exemption status from a church that doesn't follow the law, what's the problem? Would that not then be a true separation of church and state?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say government shouldn't be involved in the affairs of a church, and then complain when the government doesn't fund that church which breaks its laws. You have to decide either you want a working relationship between law and religion, or not.

However, until same-sex marriage proponents have a clear idea on how they plan to create new rights instead of taking away existing ones, we're going to have to agree to disagree on how this would all play out.

I think we all know what should be done and have a very clear idea on how it should be done. The problem comes back to democracy: if politicians write laws to grant equality of civil unions and for government to not recognize religious marriage, then they get voted out of their political position.

So, again, we're back to democracy vs. equality.

 

[Davi323]

Actually, California has a lot they can appeal on. Judge Vaughn Walker is openly gay. They will argue that he based his decision purely on self-interest, and not based on law. They will argue that because Walker has a clear self-interest in deciding it in favor of striking Prop 8 down, because it benefits him in a clear tangible way directly, that his decision needs to be thrown out, as he should have recused himself from the bench and let a different judge hear the case. Whether Walker did act out of pure self-interest or not isn't known. But the argument that he may have will be tough to completely ignore. Regardless of which side you take, you have to admit they could have a point. Put away the emotion, and think like a lawyer. An openly gay judge makes a decision that specifically benefits himself, that is directly related to his openly gay status...if you put on your lawyer caps, you have to admit the possibility exists that he made up his mind ahead of time and didn't give both sides an equal chance. Not that he definitely did, just that it's possible, based on what he stood to gain from it.

Assuming you are correct about equal protection, even though that is certainly a non-resolved legal question, a recognized legal civil union that wasn't called a marriage but granted the same legal protections, such as tax benefits would qualify as being equally protected then, therefore Prop 8 isn't inherently anti-Constitutional. There are ways to accomplish the same thing without calling it marriage. Further, if the government chose to end tax benefits etc to married couples, then what would the argument be? You couldn't claim not allowing gay marriage was a violation of the 14th amendment anymore, because the "rights" you claim you aren't getting don't apply to anyone anymore.

You can't claim that it must be gay marriage that balances it out, because marriage itself is not a protected right, nor has it ever been. So anything that satisfies equal protection would nullify that argument. The government did not create marriage, it merely chooses to, at its own discretion, recognize them. It can end that recognition at any time it chooses.

I am not 100% opposed, the states and federal governments can choose to recognize any form of domestic partnership they choose to, and I suspect that eventually, they will. However, I do disagree with anyone who says that if gay marriage is allowed, then churches have to be forced to let them occur inside their walls. If Prop is a violation of the 14th Amendment, forcing churches who don't believe in gay marriage, who believe it is a sin to allow the ceremonies to be done inside that church would be an OBVIOUS violation of the 1st amendment. If gay marriage goes against their beliefs, no government can force them to perform them.

You may be a gay couple looking to get married, but unless you find a church that will voluntarily do it, (San Francisco probably has some) tough shit about not getting a church wedding. It's a Justice of the Peace ceremony for you. The feds cannot force a church to do it.


And by the way, the Constitution exists to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Government exists because people are dumb? If the people are dumb, and the government is made up of the people, for the people, by the people, then the government is just as dumb. You can't put that many pieces of shit in a pile and expect it to start smelling good.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Then again, George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, despite losing the popular vote. So I guess we can't say our democracy has ever been truly held sacred.

Sorry to go off topic here but this has been brought to my attention. We don't really vote for the president anyway. Sure we may "pretend" to vote but in reality its congress (by congress I mean the "electoral college")who chooses the president. Apparently the people can't be trusted which to me is bullshit.

Anyway, Razor is actually right for once. This recent development is genius though it's going to piss "the people" off one way or another. Davi323, They actually can't. If what Razor says is true, then the website is the only one that's trying the case now since California's Government refuses to continue the case. Since they are the defendants, California has to BY LAW be able to defend the case.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Assuming you are correct about equal protection, even though that is certainly a non-resolved legal question, a recognized legal civil union that wasn't called a marriage but granted the same legal protections, such as tax benefits would qualify as being equally protected then, therefore Prop 8 isn't inherently anti-Constitutional. There are ways to accomplish the same thing without calling it marriage. Further, if the government chose to end tax benefits etc to married couples, then what would the argument be? You couldn't claim not allowing gay marriage was a violation of the 14th amendment anymore, because the "rights" you claim you aren't getting don't apply to anyone anymore.

So I can't really argue your point about the blatant conflict of interest in having an openly-gay judge oversee the proposition 8 ruling. But now you're getting into Separate But Equal? You know the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't only apply to African Americans, right? Homosexuals MUST be recognized as a group of people that these laws apply to. You can cite any kind of scientific study that proves homosexuality can't be helped.

You can't claim that it must be gay marriage that balances it out, because marriage itself is not a protected right, nor has it ever been. So anything that satisfies equal protection would nullify that argument. The government did not create marriage, it merely chooses to, at its own discretion, recognize them. It can end that recognition at any time it chooses.

It doesn't matter. The fact that the government offers federal tax benefits to married couples makes this a government issue. They either need to recognize homosexual marriages or completely remove all government-given benefits from this religious institution.

I am not 100% opposed, the states and federal governments can choose to recognize any form of domestic partnership they choose to, and I suspect that eventually, they will. However, I do disagree with anyone who says that if gay marriage is allowed, then churches have to be forced to let them occur inside their walls. If Prop is a violation of the 14th Amendment, forcing churches who don't believe in gay marriage, who believe it is a sin to allow the ceremonies to be done inside that church would be an OBVIOUS violation of the 1st amendment. If gay marriage goes against their beliefs, no government can force them to perform them.

Marriage doesn't need to happen in a church. There is no reason to force a marriage in a church if marriages can be done in a courthouse. That being said, I can't think of any homosexual couples that are religious enough to require a church-marriages. If there are, they'd probably live around an area that has gay-friendly churches.

And by the way, the Constitution exists to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Government exists because people are dumb? If the people are dumb, and the government is made up of the people, for the people, by the people, then the government is just as dumb. You can't put that many pieces of shit in a pile and expect it to start smelling good.

Sad but true. The constitution exists for this reason. If the people and the government, for some reason, all go collectively full ******, the constitution protects the people who are the victims of said stupidity, in this case, homosexuals.

The government ******edly allowed this ******ed proposal on the ballot and a group of ******ed people ******edly voted for it, and now we have a ******ed clusterfuck that should seriously be a non-issue because this is a CLEAR case of shit being unconstitutional. It's really simple.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I'll chime in quickly on this, simply because I got off my ass and went to the poles to vote on this matter.(as well as the legalization of marijuana, but that's no surprise to anyone here)

Norcs nailed this one like the Jews nailed Jesus.

Human rights people, simple as that for your simpleton asses.

So everything has pretty much been covered here, and I must say that I couldn't be happier with the decision. As much as I'm anti gov and anti fed I still get out there and vote and It's nice to see the great state of California overturn this bullshit.

Mad props to Cali, doing the right thing, next up full legalization of the Health Plant.

 

[Davi323]

Actually, I might support something that eliminated federal recognition of marriage, in favor of a more universal civil union for both hetero and homosexuals. While I understand that marriage isn't simply a religious thing, if the government decided that unions done in a church don't count towards secular laws, I can't argue with it from a technical standpoint.
Because the government chooses to recognize religious marriages, it means they can change their minds. Recognition is by choice, not law. If they set up a separate secular version, and you had to get one of those to get the legal benefits, so be it. It just means religious people would have to get both a civil union, for it to be recognized by the state, and a religious ceremony, for it to be recognized by God.

The reason a lot of Christians are opposed to gay marriage is because marriage is considered a covenant, a promise between not just a man and a woman, but also a promise to God. It is sacred. So, they are protective of it. But there is no requirement that any government has to recognize that covenant, even though the currently do, by choice, because frankly, it is convenient for the government to do so.

The thing is, I think homosexuals are fighting the wrong battle. Marriage is a state by state issue, even if you get married in a state that allows it, other states don't have to recognize it. What is law in California is not law in Nevada, Wisconsin or Delaware. Then, even if after a long battle, which could take decades, the federal government still doesn't have to recognize it for tax purposes. Marriage is a states issue, not a federal one. Federal law trumps state law, so if they passed a law that denied benefits to everyone, what do you really win? A piece of paper, and the ability to add to divorce statistics.

Further, most polls I have seen indicate that you get a lot more support for the idea when you call it a civil union, even if it contains all the legal commitments of a marriage. People are much more likely to accept that, so push for that first. Get civil unions accepted, framed in a way that makes sense, like don't make it a gay issue, but a general purpose domestic partnership kind of thing, that includes both gay and straight couples who don't necessarily want to get married, but still live together, share expenses, etc) then when that happens, THEN go for marriages (although, once you get the legal benefits, the question becomes do you even need to call it a "marriage"? If your argument is all about equal protection, and you simply want the legal benefits of marriage, does it have to be called marriage?) It seems to me that if your complaint is the legal benefits aspect, then a civil union, which is much more likely to be accepted, is perfectly adequate. As long as you get the rights you want, who cares if some people want to cling to their definition of marriage? The word itself isn't important, its the meaning behind them that you want.

Basically, you are making it harder than it needs to be to get what you want. Polls have shown people will accept a civil union, but not marriage. If the end result is the same, fight the battle easier to win.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

While I understand that marriage isn't simply a religious thing, if the government decided that unions done in a church don't count towards secular laws, I can't argue with it from a technical standpoint.

They don't. Two people can have a ceremony all they want, they won't be recognized as married by the state if they don't apply for a marriage license. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion in the eyes of the state, which is why this is such a big issue in the first place.

Because the government chooses to recognize religious marriages, it means they can change their minds. Recognition is by choice, not law. If they set up a separate secular version, and you had to get one of those to get the legal benefits, so be it. It just means religious people would have to get both a civil union, for it to be recognized by the state, and a religious ceremony, for it to be recognized by God.

What are you even talking about? Recognition by the state is a choice? No, if you're not recognized as married by the state, then you don't get federal tax benefits. Which is an issue with civil rights and equality.

The reason a lot of Christians are opposed to gay marriage is because marriage is considered a covenant, a promise between not just a man and a woman, but also a promise to God. It is sacred. So, they are protective of it. But there is no requirement that any government has to recognize that covenant, even though the currently do, by choice, because frankly, it is convenient for the government to do so.

You're missing the point. Seriously, very few homosexuals give a shit about the religious aspect of marriage. This would all be fine and dandy if the government didn't offer special treatment to married couples.

The thing is, I think homosexuals are fighting the wrong battle. Marriage is a state by state issue, even if you get married in a state that allows it, other states don't have to recognize it. What is law in California is not law in Nevada, Wisconsin or Delaware.

Except for the fact that federal income tax is nation wide.

A piece of paper, and the ability to add to divorce statistics.

Who the fuck cares about divorce statistics and a piece of paper? The fact of the matter is that the tax benefits are being offered, so if you strip them away from everyone, you're going to have an even bigger outcry from every side. That's like saying, "Oh, African Americans want integrated schools? Fuck it, let's just get rid of schools."

Further, most polls I have seen indicate that you get a lot more support for the idea when you call it a civil union, even if it contains all the legal commitments of a marriage. People are much more likely to accept that, so push for that first.

Seperate but equal clause was ruled unconstitutional. 14th Amendment.

It doesn't matter to me that homosexuals get their tax benefits. What bothers me is that stupid people are making such a big deal out of strangers who probably live across the country are now able to get into their secret marriage club, and that this somehow lessens their own marriage and their own family. I don't give as much of a fuck about the federal benefits as I do about letting people know that they're fucking ******ed.

But I would consider it a victory if we can achieve some sort of equality, whether it be stripping the benefits from marriage all together, or giving homosexuals the same exact rights married couples have, ver-fucking-batem. No sneaky bullshit with hospitals not recognizing your marriage and therefore not letting you into hospital rooms, or stupid shit like that.

If not, I would like to see the "sanctity of marriage" be protected by completely outlawing divorce and adultery, and watch as these stupid pieces of shits who all fought tooth and nail to prevent people from doing something that will never affect their lives in the slightest bit... I want to see them become more and more unhappy with their own marriages and come to find absolutely no way out of it. You know, because of the sanctity of marriage and all.

It also addresses your weird ass issue with divorce statistics.

(I apologize for my mini-rant)

 

[Cmac3311]

I am from Canada where gay marriage is legal and honestly it wouldn't bother me at all if gays were allowed to marry if I lived anywhere, not just in California. I feel like "hey they aren't hurting anyone else" so why do we have to make it impossible for them to be married. To me this is another reason why Church/State need to be separated so that other issues such as Stem Cell research can be pursued for the greater good.

Our era is an era of change and I'm not speaking on behalf of Americans or Canadians, but as a citizen of North America saying we both live in a beautiful and free continent, lets be tolerant and accepting of others and their differences. The world will certainly not end if gay marriage becomes legal in California and if people are that disturbed by the legalization of it then they should pack up and move.

And besides the "institution" of marriage has been soiled in years passed. Divorce rates are on the rise and that's amongst heterosexuals, so of all people are we one to criticize homosexuals when we ourselves are shitting all over the sanctity of marriage???