Originally Posted By EighthDwarf davewasbaloo: >>>What a crock of you-know-what. The EVIDENCE was brought to the Supremes in California and guess what? They ruled in favor of gay marriage. Just because the mob voted against it doesn't mean it's right.<<< But by this assertion does that make you a greater believer in meritocracy over democracy, because it sure sounds that way.>> Huh? I'm not following you. My point was that they keep arguing that gay marriage harms families and have brought no evidence to support that. They always refer to the "majority", which is an invalid argument because the majority has supported a lot of unconstutional causes over the years. And when the case was brought to the CA Supremes, they ruled that the harm was actually happening to gay couples by not having the right to marry. Just like in segregation. The mob wanted it, the court ruled against it. Meritocracy no, constitutional justice yes.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Hmmmmm, same difference I would say. Where do you draw the line. The fact the 2000 presidency was pretty much decided by the court is what has driven such deep chisms and cast doubt on America as a bastian of democracy. It is not the way to go IMHO. Then again democracy has always been a model of the lesser evil.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Okay the 5oclock news just said they aren't calling it as there are still a couple million provisional and absentee votes to count... However they said this is the first time in history that people have voted to take rights away from others. They said this will go back to the courts.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "The fact the 2000 presidency was pretty much decided by the court is what has driven such deep chisms and cast doubt on America as a bastian of democracy." I don't think that can be blamed on the court's decision per se. It was the actions of the man who the court ruled was the winner. But going back to the meritocracy point, I'm still not getting what you mean (I'm not the sharpest tool I know). I happen to think the actions of the courts over the years have strengthened our nation as they have acted as a safeguard against things that threaten freedom and democracy. Your comments make it sound like you are not in favor of the court stepping when constitutionality is being discussed. Am I misintrepreting what you are saying? Personally I believe the courts have done a lot of good over the years defending the rights of all - sometimes against the will of the majority. I am not sure what our nation would look like today without that important safeguard.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Justice George's opinion did not set up a new suspect class based based upon sexual orientation as most commentators seem to assume. Here's the good part. There is ample precedent under CA law that alterations of fundamental rights cannot to done with a mere amendment via majority vote of the electorate. This would constitute a "revision" of the CA Constitution would requires 2/3 vote of both Houses of Legislature AND a 2/3 vote by the electorate or alternatively a State Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 vote of both houses. It will have to be litigated but we will prevail." I don't know how legally sound this is. Maybe SPP can comment?" There have been several lawsuits filed already today, most based upon this premise. More are likely to follow. It's a sound argument.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As we have been saying all along, "the will of the people" cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. "Will of the people" is a crutch for those that don't have a solid legal argument. Moreover, on the face of it, the passage of Prop 8 is going to require a court review, because if this is an amendment, then the California Constitution is now in conflict with itself vis a vis Equal Protection. Rather than rely on a "traditional marriage" approach, let's see some legalese from the bigots. Let's see some case law, statutes, something that can resolve the conflict they've now created in California. Let's see how they can explain why this isn't a revision that should go through the procedure described above. They haven't come up with anything other than lies and distortions so far, and that ain't gonna fly in court.
Originally Posted By mele <<They haven't come up with anything other than lies and distortions so far,>> You forgot derision and dismissive. ;-)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I just keep flashing back to the friends of ours that came over late last night crying. They kept asking over and over why people hate them so much. Why do people feel the need to persecute them for something they can't help. What did they ever do to them? This election was a punch in the gut that just knocked the air out of them. I said it before. The people who pushed and lied and cheated to get Prop 8 passed (I'm talking to you, josh), need to know the personal pain and anguish they have caused so many people. This goes far beyond some archaic notions they have about some "prophet" who saw Jesus at a McDonald's or something. This has caused some genuine pain to some very real people. It's as if people like josh were DUI offenders and they should be taken to the morgue to see the death and destruction caused by DUI's. josh needs to see the hurt he's caused, all under the name of his warped god. josh needs to see, feel and hear the anguish he's brought on total strangers. The passage of Prop 8 was one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated under the guise of an election here in California. Congratulations on robbing these people of their soul, josh. Even when this abomination is overturned in the courts, it still won't unring the bell you rung. You've put a stain on your life and theirs that will never be removed.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Rather than rely on a "traditional marriage" approach, let's see some legalese from the bigots.<< Preferably not containing the words "activist judges." One question, and please understand that I'm asking as an anti-8 person who wants to know for future reference ... why wasn't this Constitutional issue brought up before the election?
Originally Posted By mele <<You've put a stain on your life and theirs that will never be removed.>> I would say that his church is taking a major hit in the way people view them. People may not be so quick to defend them when they are discriminated against. Time will tell whether or not their church suffers the consequences of meddling in politics and bigotry. I know that I'll never look at Mormons the same way again and will have to teach my children that they are dangerous, a sad thing that didn't have to happen.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I'm sure most of you have gotten this in your email or have seen it on Myspace or something, but it clarified my thoughts on prop h8. 1) Being gay is not natural. And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts. 2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay. In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next. 4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed. 6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children. 8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children...... *and we know how Scott Peterson being raised by both mother and father turned him into a wonderful human being.. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, women in the workplace, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sign me up for SPP's comments. This prop was the worst kind of cowardice; it perpetrated great pain on people that the perpetrators will never have to witness first hand. They don't have to see the pain and havoc they've wreaked.
Originally Posted By rhodri I believe that the mormons are the Talaban in America. This is hard for me to say, because I have friends who are mormon and I'm not sure how this will affect my relationship with them. By the way, I'm a straight, married man with 5 grown children and g'kids and I have never, ever been more ashamed of "my people". Josh has said more than once that he "loves gay people" that sounds to me just like the husband that says I love you to his wife as he beats her to a pulp,claiming that he wouldn't have to do this if she would only behave. Or the father that says I love you as he molests his little girl! ( The incest rate in Utah is the highest in the nation, by the way). Funny that they are not fighting against that?
Originally Posted By Route66 With the Mormons were talking about a group of people that sometimes will bar their own mother and father from attending a wedding. You see, only the purest and most uncorrupted people may enter a Mormon temple, you must have paid all your tithes and meet a number of other requirements. So if your children or loved ones gets married in the temple and your some how unfit to enter, well thats just too bad, you can wait outside like a dog.. Many family's have been separated in this way for not being good enough Mormons. I'm supposed to let these people dictate who can and can't be married? Even in your own church that love's and accepts you for being gay? Because a bunch of rich Mormons scared a people into believing they were offending God if they didn't vote yes...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Stop the presses. It looks like the fight is just beginning: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-081105-gay-marriage-ban-california,0,1804310.story" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/...10.story</a> >>Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said. The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature. Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.<< This is going to be very interesting indeed. >>"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.<<
Originally Posted By ecdc >>With the Mormons were talking about a group of people that sometimes will bar their own mother and father from attending a wedding.<< One of the great regrets of my life is not having my father at my own wedding. What a stupid, naive kid I was to think a god I could neither see nor hear was more important than the man who raised me and gave me so much. It's appropriate here because it's the same idea; people put foolish ideologies ahead of real people.
Originally Posted By mele Gotta say, I find the thought of them spending so much money to ultimately fail is pretty funny. And even they admit that they will fail. I guess they think that makes them principled or something but sometimes stupid is just stupid.
Originally Posted By Route66 ecdc, I'm sorry to hear that. I wasn't passing judgment, however I want you to know that I am from a very old Mormon Family from St.George Utah, so I can empathies with your regret. Its a complicated and tangled web that Mormon (also ex-Mormon or excommunicated) people have to sort out.
