Prop 8: Great riddance, or GREATEST riddance?

[cim]

Here's a news story in case you haven't heard.

In the biggest news until the Supreme Court inevitably takes this case, a federal court overturned Proposition 8, California's ban on same sex marriage, by ruling it unconstitutional. Obviously the case is rather unprecedented and though the decision's text hasn't rolled in yet, this is still big news. Thoughts?

 

[Thund91]

In my opinion this should never have been a ballot initiative in the first place, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

 

[TubaKing]

This is great. I hope that if the case does, in fact, reach the US Supreme Court that they vote to support Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling.

 

[Mentlegen]

As a Californian, I'm pretty excited that it was overturned. It astounded me that people could just believe that the tyranny of the majority was reasonable in this instance, that it was OK to just completely oppress someone because of who they love.

Not to mention that since I'm Mormon, if you bring up homosexuality at all, people tend to make noises of disgust, and it kind of scares me that people just accept the bigotry that others blatantly exhibit in response to something that isn't harmful to them.

 

[Flamewheeler]

Well, I'm quite glad that this happened. Although, it doesn't seem like it's going to kick into effect just yet. Anyway, i read about it through my yahoo! mail and I came across this:

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.

This kind of bothered me, but I'm not sure what else to say about it. Any thoughts?

 

[Priori]

Well, it's about time. I don't really care if this didn't happen the 'democratic' way; 52% of the people who voted proved themselves idiots and I don't see why we need to respect the opinions of idiots, simple as.

 

[Alex Practice]

The running joke in my family around the time Obama became president and Prop 8 passed was "Evidently America finally recognizes blacks as equal, but not gays."

I'm very happy about this. It's about fucking time.

 

[Xing]

I'm confused about the consequence of this ruling. I thought that when Prop 8 was overturned, same sex marriage would be legal again, but apparently this isn't the case. I understand that Prop 8 proponents will go to the Court of Appeals, but won't same sex marriage be legal between now and then?

Can someone please explain the effects of this ruling.

 

[Carl]

Possibly the most ignorant post I've read on this forum so far. But since it's already dealt, I'll leave it at that.

I'm confused about the consequence of this ruling. I thought that when Prop 8 was overturned, same sex marriage would be legal again, but apparently this isn't the case. I understand that Prop 8 proponents will go to the Court of Appeals, but won't same sex marriage be legal between now and then?

Can someone please explain the effects of this ruling.

"It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing." - LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,2696248.story

Sounds like we'll find out Friday.

 

[Xing]

What will the Friday hearing be about?

 

[Cathy]

Bottom line: this thread isn't a generic same sex marriage discussion.

There are some interesting points to discuss that are actually on topic.

Some relevant precedent is Romer v. Evans.

On the other hand, the California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 in 2008.

The real issues in play here include the extent of equal protection jurisprudence and state sovereignty.

 

[drifblim70]

I'm a little worried about it going all the way to this Supreme Court, I mean, they've been looking pretty conservative lately (the whole corporations=individuals in terms of buying ad space for compaigns ruling specifically, and there was another one this year involving gun control legislation being struck down that had people pretty angry iirc). I mean, if they actually decide based upon judicial conservatism they can't possibly find it any other way--there's no valid legal reason why a marriage ought to be defined legally as between a man and a woman, especially with all the legal rights/issues of taxation that marriage entails in U.S. state and federal law currently having nothing to do with gender in particular, but if they go the social conservative route (which I wouldn't put past them) we could be looking at a new big federal block on gay marriage to get past. I'm happy with Massachusetts having legalized it (I'm from there btw), but yeah, we'll see where this goes... The least the more conservative states could do would be to say that "civil unions" = "marriage" as far as visitation rights and taxation goes, have any of them done that?

 

[RBG]

The whole problem here is that people use the word "marriage" to define what should be called "civil unions". Marriage is a religious term and Civil Union is a legal term. Marriage brings religion into the whole issue and is what drives people to disallow gays from getting Civil Unions.

 

[Morm]

The real issues in play here include the extent of equal protection jurisprudence and state sovereignty.

Why is it that in a free country equal protection has to be at odds with state sovereignty? Sounds like they are circumventing promised freedoms with some rhetoric about...wait how can they even argue this?

Agreeing with RBG, I've said that many a time in debate. I think one issue is that gays want marriage, if they are religious, as an equality thing, so they are asking a state with huge religious infiltration to muscle one of the most revered traditions to allow them to get married. Revered being a loose term, given the divorce rate.

 

[billymills]

The whole problem here is that people use the word "marriage" to define what should be called "civil unions". Marriage is a religious term and Civil Union is a legal term. Marriage brings religion into the whole issue and is what drives people to disallow gays from getting Civil Unions.

This is what I don't understand about the issue. Are all marriages civil unions, or do governments recognise civil unions, or is this a state-by-state decision?

I believe there should be civil unions (recognised by the government) for all consenting couples, but I don't give a shit about marriages (church recognised). If the churches want to keep their term to mean whatever they want, let them, but don't recognise it.

 

[hbdragon88]

This is what I don't understand about the issue. Are all marriages civil unions, or do governments recognise civil unions, or is this a state-by-state decision?

I believe there should be civil unions (recognised by the government) for all consenting couples, but I don't give a shit about marriages (church recognised). If the churches want to keep their term to mean whatever they want, let them, but don't recognise it.

IIRC, a marriage license is good in all states. Civil unions are only good in the state that granted the license, with at least one exception - New York accepts other state's civil unions but doesn't actually do civil unions themselves.

The recently-struck-down Defense of Marriage Act stated that states do not have to recognize the other state's civil unions.

 

[Morm]

marriage is recognized by state, hence my comment about heavy infiltration of state by religion. More Americans than I am comfortable with base their vote on the president based on his religion rather than his message; most governors even can't get voted in without flying under the banner of a faith (and lose a great deal of votes if they are atheist). It's unfortunate, despite the constitution saying directly that there is to be no combination of the two, there is a dynamic duo of state and religion in the USA. This means that there is a marriage between state and marriage over state and civil union every time.

This applies quite strongly to this debate- the whole resistance of anti-gay marriage is founded entirely on things wrote in the bible, meanwhile a civil union would also be resisted because of the anti-gay movement spurred by the bible. A nation, much like a person, cannot move forward without letting go of the past. This applies to religion so directly in this debate that it should be obvious to children, though sadly I feel indoctrination and hate propaganda (ie a pastor talking about how bad gays are) have taken a toll.

Just my take on things looking in from the outside.

 

[MrIndigo]

Marriage is might have been an ecclesiastical terms once, but they have either changed in meaning, or more likely, 'marriage' can be used to mean multiple different things. The reason there is opposition to the Civil Union option is two-fold. First, gay-marriage opponents see it as simply allowing marriage under a different name. Second, gay-marriage supporters point out there are numerous rights and benefits afforded to marriage that aren't on civil unions, so in reality it's not separate-but-equal at all.


Also, the anti-democratic arguments are meaningless. The Constitution of the country describes the powers afforded to the Government to pass law. This is not democracy under attack, really; it's just that you never had the power to vote for this law because the Government did not have the power to make it. It would be similar to you trying to pass a piece of legislation making it a legal obligation on all citizens to kill a particular individual. The government does not have the power to make that law.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The biggest thing that this highlights is the inanity of allowing the voters to vote on the rights of a minority class. Part of the reason that fundamental rights are actually instated and considered to exist is because the majority should not be able to simply impose its will on a niche group's lifestyle simply by the mere virtue of being more populous. Allowing a majority (likely homophobic straight people) to define specifically what a protected minority class is allowed to do under the law opens up a far bigger can of worms than anyone is ready to face at this point.

That said, I honestly don't care if a bunch of god-fearing homophobic priests want to say "gays marrying gays is an abomination against god" because it's their "god-given" right to believe whatever inane shit that they want. I also don't care if they don't want to marry them. But the fact that basically everyone has jumped on marriage as a state institution rather than a religious one means that it's "not their business any more" at this point.

tl;dr: If a priest doesn't want to let gays say vows in his church, I don't give a shit. But the times of the church defining what "marriage" is have long passed, and if marriage is going to become a state institution, then homosexuals have the right to participate.

 

[Fatecrashers]

In terms of allowing the majority of voters to vote on the rights of a minority class, I can see many parallels between this and what has been going on with the law changes in Arizona. Except over there what's getting your basic rights taken away isn't your sexual orientation but the colour of your skin, just like how Californian gays could not marry, minority ethnicities in Arizona are under the law stigmatised with the label of 'illegal immigrant'. Arguably a point of difference does exist with the Proposition 8 issue containing a religious element, but certainly the sort of injustice seen here is not unique and does in fact show up in lots of hot topics, especially in the United States.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The Arizona law doesn't actually infringe on the rights of the affected class, though. All it does is add an additional directive to law enforcement officers directing them to check the IDs of people they have "reasonable cause" to do so with. There are only 2 real problems there.

1: Regular beat cops are not INS agents. They are not the "first line of defense" against illegal immigrants, and making immigration their job means assigning a duty intended for federal officers to carry out.

2: "Reasonable Cause" probably turns into "is this person brown" when you're talking about a state with a border on Mexico, which essentially means this law is a directive telling officers to racially profile. While I'm sure that these officers don't need to be told to do so (being a cop in a border state probably brings with it a certain level of, shall we say... racial tension), it brings up a question of whether or not the law is directed at a specific race. Obviously the law is directed at a minority (illegal immigrants), but a minority defined by being members of a common group known as "lawbreakers" grants them no extra rights. In this case, however, it's incredibly likely that this law would negatively impact citizens far more than it would impact illegal immigrants.

However, this is a debate for another thread.

EDIT: Let me just make clear that this post is not meant to be an endorsement of the Arizona law. I feel that it is both racist AND incredibly ineffective. Illegal immigrants will do their thing, ID or no ID. They might be marginally hindered by a law like this, but it's definitely not getting the job done.

 

[Jack Jack]

The whole problem here is that people use the word "marriage" to define what should be called "civil unions". Marriage is a religious term and Civil Union is a legal term. Marriage brings religion into the whole issue and is what drives people to disallow gays from getting Civil Unions.

You forget one thing : Marriage are generally recongnised by foreign states, civil unions, less so.

Beside, "Marriage" was civil long before it was religious. People have been marrying each other since the dawn of civilisation, and it's been less than 2000 years that marriage is a religious thing.

 

[cantab]

The running joke in my family around the time Obama became president and Prop 8 passed was "Evidently America finally recognizes blacks as equal, but not gays."

One of my friends noted that the USA has elected a black President, and it could well have elected a woman as President, but that we doubted in our lifetimes it will ever elect an atheist President. (Kitten Bukkake has mentioned a similar issue).

The whole problem here is that people use the word "marriage" to define what should be called "civil unions". Marriage is a religious term and Civil Union is a legal term. Marriage brings religion into the whole issue and is what drives people to disallow gays from getting Civil Unions.

Marriage is a legal term AND a religious one. This arose from when virtually the entire population was religious (and almost all of THAT following the one dominant religion).

 

[cim]

On the other hand, the California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 in 2008.

I think it's important to note that the previous case was argued for an entirely different reason, and that argument was in my opinion significantly weaker than the current, very strong legal argument. Essentially, the argument was that Proposition 8 constituted a revision rather than an amendment to the state constitution and thus it needed the support of state legislature before going to ballot. Civil rights issues weren't the major subject of debate, and as a state case arguments about equal protection wouldn't have made much sense. It was pretty easy to see that the argument that Prop 8 was a revision was reaching quite a bit.

 

[TubaKing]

One of my friends noted that the USA has elected a black President, and it could well have elected a woman as President, but that we doubted in our lifetimes it will ever elect an atheist President. (Kitten Bukkake has mentioned a similar issue).

I also find this unfortunate.
You may find this interesting. Congressman Pete Stark of California is the only openly athiestic federal politician in the United States, but there are very likely more who (I'd dare say smartly) do not wish to "come out" in that regard, considering the power of the religious right in this country.
I know the rest of Western Civilization is generally more humanistic than the United States, but is the statistic of openly athiestic/agnostic politicians in Europe/Oceania significantly closer to reflecting the percentage of non-religious persons in each country?

Also, with the separation of church and state, there is absolutely no reason for any state's definition of marriage to discriminate against homosexuals (or any other minority group), who deserve equal protection under the law.