Originally Posted By WorldDisney Same sex married dalmatians!! (Hmmm, although I can't explain what happens to the odd one out lol. I'm guessing he/she is in one of those multi-spouse relationships people been talking about a lot here )
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We do ourselves and our country a disservice when we talk to opponents of gay marriage politely.> I'm of two minds about that. I understand what you all are saying about that, and I know where you're coming from. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. But as SPP points out, not everyone who currently opposes same-sex marriage is a hardcore bigot. Many can be persuaded. Many HAVE been persuaded. And many others will be turned off, get defensive, and harden their position the wrong way if they're called bigots. I've seen it in my own life. I know a number of people who used to oppose same-sex marriage but now favor it. I remember talking to them about it years ago. I laid out my arguments rationally and politely, and didn't convince them. X-number of months later perhaps we had the same conversation... still didn't convince them. But the seeds were planted. And as they thought about it more, and perhaps saw my own marriage in action (and/or those of other people they knew), slowly they came around. The polls show there are millions of people like this. Support for marriage equality nationwide used to be a blip, then 10%, then 15%... now it's about 35%, with another 30% or so favoring marriage but not using the "M word" (calling it civil unions). And I doubt few of them changed their minds because they were called bigots and didn't like it. I'm guessing most of them were persuaded slowly. We saw this with segregation also. Plenty of my southern relatives of my Mom's generation were against integration, not because they were hard-core bigots, but simply because it was what they grew up with and it seemed like "the way things are." And changing it seemed risky. Why upset the apple cart, they thought? They knew they didn't really hate black people. It wasn't like black people couldn't ride the bus at all or get a drink of water. They could do so - just separately - was that so awful? These weren't bad-hearted people. They had been taught black people should be separate, or even that they were inferior to whites, and when challenged on an assumption they held all their lives - guess what, they didn't change their minds overnight. They unquestionably held bigoted attitudes but I wouldn't call THEM bigots - does that make sense? And slowly, they heard the arguments MLK and others were making, saw how important it was to the black people they knew, and came to understand that segregation was wrong. But in some cases it took years. So I think it's fine to say that the ATTITUDES espoused by some here are bigoted, and to call a hard-core bigot like a Dobson or someone like that exactly what he is, but we shouldn't be afraid of what the Quakers call "friendly persuasion" with a lot of folks. Millions of Americans HAVE moved the right way on this issue (and, as with segregation, very few move the other way). A majority of Americans under 30 now favor full marriage equality and are unlikely to move the other way. It's coming. Me, if I encounter someone who seems to be a hard-core bigot, I'll say my piece but not fight too hard because he may NEVER change his mind. But if I see a basically good-hearted person who opposes gay marriage for the time being, I'll explain my position politely and plant the seeds. With people like this, I think it's the better way to go.
Originally Posted By ecdc Good points, Dabob2 and SPP. Well said. I can see the value in moderating the tone. But I think it's still important to point out that bigotry, even if it's unintended, is still bigotry. Comparisons to civil rights are particularly apt. My concern remains that without pointing that out, it can legitimize the other position. I can have a conversation, say, about how to solve America's healthcare crisis. There are different ideas, many of them good and legitimate. But I find it very difficult to have a serious conversation about why gay people should or should not be allowed to marry. It seems no different than having a conversation about why blacks ought or ought not be allowed to marry. I think that's an important distinction to make, even when remaining polite.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But I think it's still important to point out that bigotry, even if it's unintended, is still bigotry. Comparisons to civil rights are particularly apt.> <It seems no different than having a conversation about why blacks ought or ought not be allowed to marry. I think that's an important distinction to make, even when remaining polite.> I agree. I'll explain why the position is wrong, but try not to characterize the person who holds it. And point out that many people have changed their minds on this (as with segregation), and they can too.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult...tiny.htm</a> I remember posting this once before, but because it's very relevant now I'll repeat it. In an earlier post I referenced the different levels of scrutiny the courts use when evaluating a law. The Caifornia Supreme Court used scrict scruitiny, where the government must show a compelling state interest. Opponents are using and will likely push for a rational basis test, where the government need only show the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. There's an intermediate level as well, but it doesn't seem to be in play here so far. Here's an excerpt, and more discussion is available at the link. Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis 1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.): A. Suspect Classifications: 1. Race 2. National Origin 3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis) 4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied). B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights 1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote 2. Interstate Migration 3. Access to the Courts 4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental 2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.): Quasi-Suspect Classifications: 1. Gender 2. Illegitimacy 3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.) Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.
Originally Posted By alexbook SPP: You've posted a couple of times that the voters can't reverse this. I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't tried reading the decision itself, but the news stories (e.g., the L. A. Times this morning) say this decision was based on the gay marriage ban being in violation of the state Constitution. Surely, that *could* be amended by the voters this November. There's certainly going to be an initiative on the ballot to do just that. It's called the "Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment" and the California Secretary of State's web site lists it as "pending signature verification."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder To follow up, some may ask "since homosexuals are expressly mentioned in the rational basis section, why wasn't that used?", the answer is the court found a fundamental right, marriage, was at play, elevating it to strict scrutiny.
Originally Posted By alexbook Here's the link I meant to include: <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...ns_j.htm</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Alex- voters can vote on whatever is put in front of them. All sorts of sensible and nonsensical things end up on the ballot. But the initiatives have to pass judicial muster afterwards, provided someone brings a suit, and someone always does. That's what I mean by the voters can't simply overturn it this by an initiative. The California Supreme Court has signaled that anything with the end result of a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>The California Supreme Court has signaled that anything with the end result of a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.<< Sorry if I'm being dense here, but if this is based on a "fundamental right" in the state Constitution, why can't the voters amend the Constitution itself to remove that right? If they put the ban into the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional? That's the part I'm confused about.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Good points, Dabob2 and SPP. Well said. I can see the value in moderating the tone. But I think it's still important to point out that bigotry, even if it's unintended, is still bigotry. Comparisons to civil rights are particularly apt.<< I agree as well. I just get frustrated that at this late date, we still have to battle about this kind of stuff. I think comparing this to the arguments against interracial marriage is on target. Of course, mentioning that the arguments against gay marriage are pretty much word for word stuff that was said in the recent past about interracial marriage causes discomfort. That discomfort, I think, is that gnawing discomfort one gets when their heart is telling them that they are on the wrong side of history here. No reasonable person, given the chance to go back in time, would seriously argue for a constitutional ban on interracial marriage.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Kar2oonMan, I don't think the people who are against gay marriage feel a gnaw of anything. They truly feel that it's wrong. At least that's how I read it. When gay people get married, it seems to signal the end of polite society or something. I don't know for sure.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Kar2oonMan, I don't think the people who are against gay marriage feel a gnaw of anything. They truly feel that it's wrong. At least that's how I read it.> There are people like that. And they'll never change their minds. The people who feel the gnaw are those people I talked about who may be transitioning. It's hard to give up a long-held belief, whether it's "gay marriage is wrong" or "there's nothing wrong with the back of the bus." People start by rejecting the counter argument outright, then reject it out loud but feel that gnawing sense that they might be wrong... and eventually many change their minds. Slowly.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>They truly feel that it's wrong. At least that's how I read it.<< That's how I read it as well. Like I said in last night's post, nothing is ever going to change. I would be content with tolerance, simply being left alone, live and let live and all that, but no. The anti folks have framed this issue in a way where I feel that aggressively calling them on it, challenging it, and fighting it is the most effective way to deal with it.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF OK, now this really ticks me off. ADMIN, WHY was my previous post redlined? There was NOTHING in there that violated the so-called "community standards"!
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ Disregard that. It was meant for an entirely different topic! *redfaced* It has been a long week...
Originally Posted By DAR Yesterday I mentioned that I don't care either way if bills like this pass or not. I want to clarify. If a gay person was never allowed to get married it wouldn't make them any less of a person in my eyes. If I don't think that way about single heterosexual people(myself included) I certainly wouldn't think that way about homosexual people. But if they're allowed to get married fantastic. And any reasonable person knows that it's not going to lead more absurd requests such as people marrying their dog. Though working in the Insurance industry people I can tell you that people have wanted to name their pets as beneficiaries for their life insurance.
Originally Posted By mele I was just reading about this issue on another message board (I'm also bi-forumnal) and someone actually wrote: "What will the California government legalize next...bisexual marriages?!" What in the holy heck is that supposed to mean? LOL
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA People love to add the most absurd thing they can think of... 'The next thing ya know, people will wanna marry their pet goat.' To which I reply.. 'If people want to pursue that, they have the right to do so.' They hate that...
