A different vote

[A Thing of Eternity]

From FOX:

LOS ANGELES -- California voters have approved a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage that overturns the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago.

The passage of Proposition 8 represents a crushing political defeat for gay rights activists. They had hoped public opinion on the contentious issue had shifted enough to help them defeat the measure.

It also represents a personal loss for the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window when they could. Legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether their unions still are valid.

Sad. I really don't understand how an amendment taking away rights can be passed. I can understand places not having given the rights to gay people yet, change takes time, but actually going backwards? What a thing democracy is sometimes...

[Sole Man]

...What a thing democracy is sometimes...

This isn't a democracy, this is a Consevativecy! (What ever the Hell that means)


Ya' know what, take this arguement up with Micheal Svage, see where it gets you.

[Drunken Idaho]

Yeah, that is pretty messed up.

[Omphalos]

The ballot initiative was confusingly written. A no vote meant that gays could marry, because it asked if the Supreme Court ruling that struck the last battle over this should be invalidated. However, I think some states had this issue on the ballot this time and all of them passed. Florida did, I know. Michigan may have too.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Looks like a good example of democracy needing to be scaled back to me...

[DuneFishUK]

Hmm.. that is confusing.

Why do they call it "same-sex marriage"? Surely that's asking for it - because marriage is a man and a woman in the eyes of god. It is what politicians say they are in favour of.

Over here they call it "civil partnership" which (silly as it sounds) skirts a lot of the issues some people have with the concept and seems to establish it as an independent phenomenon (even if in the eyes of the law they are the same).

People are rubbish.

[Nekhrun]

It will get overturned when Barack's Supreme Court takes it up in a couple years.

[A Thing of Eternity]

I'm not sure what the official reason for calling it marriage rather than civil-union is in the USA - but I know up here it was pretty much because there shouldn't have to be a different term for it. Marriage isn't a Christian idea, and we're not a Christian country, so the Christian definition of a word that they have no claim to really shouldn't carry any weight what-so-ever with politicians deciding minority rights.


I can see in the US though maybe it might be a good idea to let that smaller fish go if it would help get the big one and just call it a civil union.

[SandChigger]

Marriage never made one bit of sense to me.

"You're MINE!" "And YOU're MINE!"

Abolish the state's involvement and replace it with a system of agreements or contracts already. Sheesh.

If people want to do the religious ceremony silliness, fine. But keep the state out of it.


One way of solving an issue is to make it a non-issue.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Marriage never made one bit of sense to me.

"You're MINE!" "And YOU're MINE!"

Abolish the state's involvement and replace it with a system of agreements or contracts already. Sheesh.

If people want to do the religious ceremony silliness, fine. But keep the state out of it.


One way of solving an issue is to make it a non-issue.

I agree completely. As my mom always said to me: "gay marriage? Oh, I'm against gay marriage. Mind you - I'm against marraige of any kind."

But as long as that is what we're using, then it should apply without discrimination.

I'm not planning on getting married period.

[Omphalos]

Here is something i posted elsewhere a while ago on the issue. It may help you to understand some of the public poilcy issues. It was in response to a post that Orson Scott Card had gone off the deep end by saying that gay marriage was legally unsupportable (though he descended into a moral argument thereafter).

Well I have been staying out of this argument for pretty much the reasons you can find all over all of these posts. I was almost the first responder to L-K’s original post, and I almost gave Card and eye-rolley and agreed with L-K. My personal opinion is that his thinking is quite backward on the issue, and that his opinion does not measure up with the progressive society that I like to think that I am a part of.

But then I stopped and deleted my comment, because I took a better look at his article. I have to say, even though it is replete with conclusionary statements that he fails to support with facts, that his tone is probably purposefully inflammatory to raise both ire in the more liberal and passion in the more conservative, and that there are a host of other logical fallacies and argumentative tricks, his understanding of the legal issue may in fact present the case correctly. Here’s my two cents:

In this country (and virtually every other one on Earth), marriage is recognized as something more valuable and important that even the enumerated “fundamental rights” of the Bill of Rights. Card is correct in saying that governments and legislatures do not either create or acknowledge a historical right to marry, and therefore tacitly allow it. They regulate it to keep control of many issues, such as dissolution thereof, ownership of property, dowry and dower, common law rights, child care and control, property distribution, benefits at death and so on. In short there is no stated “fundamental right to marry” because its not the State’s place to allow or disallow that. Rather, we accept marriage as a historical right that we only let the State touch in certain ways. So I think that Card has that correct.

The critical question here is: What do we include in that historical right? Do we assume that the right to marry includes the right for gays and lesbians to marry, or is that something we only let men and women do? And the simple fact is that there are good, strong, well thought out, well researched and well presented answers on both sides. Consider the basic arguments. On one side, marriage traditionally was to ensure family stability so that children could be begat, raised and provided for. On the other, marriage was to stabilize relations between couples so that that they could feel enabled to have kids, buy property, or whatever else it is that they wanted to do legally.

But whatever you think the right should include, or what you think of Card’s position, it absolutely, positively is an unanswered question in our society. We live in a legislated society that must come up with an answer and legislate it before the debate is over, an anyone is legally wrong, regardless of moral considerations. And because it pertains to a fundamental right, you will have passionate arguments on both sides of the debate. So we may all have strong feelings here, but I personally think its foolish to presume that any of us know the answer. Card just happens to be giving one side of the debate here, and even if it is inflammatory, if you cut those parts out, his argument is persuasive as its well grounded in one particular ideology.

L-K, I think I hear what you are saying here. On one level you disagree with him morally. But on another you think his arguments are bogus and lack logical cohesiveness. But take away the stuff like “they wont even let us pray in front of abortion clinics anymore,” and you may see what I see: Logically applied theory to a set of particular facts (and incidentally, Card is technically correct with that one: Federal common law and multiple State Court rulings definitely say that abortion clinic protesters have to be back a certain distance beyond the curitlage of the abortion facility. They may be able to gather on the street, or down the block, but I don’t think any jurisdiction allows them to be close enough to touch potential patients, or to be heard from inside the facility, except for some Southern, Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic jurisdictions that have looser, yet still restrictive guidelines).

But I can also see the inflammatory side of this paper too. His first paragraph says that this kind of “legislating from the bench” will “destroy democracy” in the United States. My opinion is that is over the top and just plain wrong, but there is another way of looking at it here. If the historical right does not allow for marriage of a man to a man or a woman to a woman (a point that might be correct), then striking down an anti-gay marriage law does not give the court the right to state that it does. All it does is strike down that law and leaves us with the natural or historical rights that the state may not affect. I’m actually not trying to take one side here; just point out that under one wise, well reasoned and strongly supported view of jurisprudence, he has a good point and is not making a fool of himself by stating it. My point here in this last paragraph is that when you say this:

It only takes a tiny amount of thought to see this argument is utter nonsense. This is what judges are SUPPOSED to do! It's their JOB to strike down laws they deem unconstitutional.

you are technically correct. It is their job to strike down unconstitutional laws, but if they go that extra step and say that gay marriage is OK because the law is unconstitutional, then they may have gone too far and have exceeded their authority, as it is still an open question what the traditional right allows. Now, if by only striking down the law and saying nothing more than it is unconstitutional, and the executive branch then authorizes gay marriage, then that is not judicial legislation, and it in fact creates another issue for the courts to examine, which is, in allowing gays to marry is the executive branch exceeding its authority?

In this case I think that the anti-gay marriage proponents jumped the gun without getting this fundamental quesion answered. Instead they put a ballot initiative up in Ca and Fl and other states, and pressed it with "save the fucking children" kind of advertisements about how disgusting it is to see two men kissing in a park in front of a rabbi. But this fundamental quesiton still has to be answered. But....strategically I think that the next attack from gay activists will be directly against this ballot initiative, rather than on the major issue.

This issue is not done by a long shot. There will be constitutional challenges to it, and there will be further ballot initiatives and legislative efforts. Not only that, but our system of laws requires that one state give full faith and credit to the legal holdings of other states in many instances, and one of them is marriage. That is to say, someone legally married in one state or territory must be regarded as married by another. That will have to be litigated in the future too, and in fact its the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the corner.

Here is the original Card article.

Here is the discussion we had elsewhere about it.

[Sole Man]

I know-

Let's kill all the women!

Problem solved. Don't gripe to me about it; you're for it too, you just don't realize it.

[SandRider]

wow. those two posts, in sequence, says all you could ever say about this board ...

[Ampoliros]

There is no legal reason why gay marriage should be abolished. Its all religious. I won't even say moral, just religious. If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds fine. But keep in mind its a free fucking country and you do not have the right to make laws based solely off your religious beliefs. Gay marriage is a benefit (or flaw, as you will) of a free and industrious society. Oh and yeah, some religions tolerate gay marriage. Marriage also is not a purely religious idea. Oops are you being ignorant enough yet? How about we start attacking some religious rights that you have? How about this? Religious sites are no longer tax-free? Pastors who preach politics at the pulpit/synagogue/temple/mosque get fined? 'Retreat Centers' are not considered tax-free even if they are owned by a religious organization?

I'm sorry I wouldn't want to be stepping on your freedoms.

[GamePlayer]

I actually like the idea of marriage, but I'm against the tyranny of it. It seems some people have this idea that a) you MUST get married and b) only straight white, Christian people may do so and c) you can't mix paints otherwise you'll dilute the colors. I'm really curious, who the hell made up these dumb ass rules and why do so many people think it's a good idea when they are living in a supposedly free, enlightened democracy? Either we're not living in such a society or people are just hypocrites; most likely both

Soap boxing aside, I do realize why things are the way they are, I'm just really saddened that it takes so damn long for everyone to grow up.

[TheDukester]

Getting married was the smartest thing I ever did. By far. Not kidding at all.

Not sure what my point is, really; just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Drunken Idaho]

I actually like the idea of marriage, but I'm against the tyranny of it. It seems some people have this idea that a) you MUST get married and b) only straight white, Christian people may do so and c) you can't mix paints otherwise you'll dilute the colors. I'm really curious, who the hell made up these dumb ass rules and why do so many people think it's a good idea when they are living in a supposedly free, enlightened democracy? Either we're not living in such a society or people are just hypocrites; most likely both

Soap boxing aside, I do realize why things are the way they are, I'm just really saddened that it takes so damn long for everyone to grow up.

Personally, I'm all for the melting pot... I hope there comes a day when we are all tan-skinned goobacks.

[GamePlayer]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

[A Thing of Eternity]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

Short people.


I've put some thought into this, and short people would get the shaft.

[Drunken Idaho]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

Short people.


I've put some thought into this, and short people would get the shaft.

Thanks randy.

[chanilover]

Oh well. If these turds who voted against gay marriage are so concerned to protect the "sanctity of the marriage bond", maybe they should have banned divorce while they were at it.

There's a few things I don't understand. I did study US law and politics (only to get the points I needed to graduate) and I was wondering if there are any provisions in the constitution which could be interpreted as providing rights to gay marriage, like the equal protection clause or the privileges and immunities clause.

[TheDukester]

Our Constitution is a wonderful, amazing document ... but it can also be a bit goofy, especially in modern times.

A great example: I've never really worried about having to quarter troops in my home, but, by God, thanks to the Third Amendment, I'm legally protected from having to do so. Woot!

[Freakzilla]

Oh well. If these turds who voted against gay marriage are so concerned to protect the "sanctity of the marriage bond", maybe they should have banned divorce while they were at it.

Great point!

There's a few things I don't understand. I did study US law and politics (only to get the points I needed to graduate) and I was wondering if there are any provisions in the constitution which could be interpreted as providing rights to gay marriage, like the equal protection clause or the privileges and immunities clause.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Omphalos]

Equal Protection is actually in the 14th Amendement. Equal protection is the major constitutional argument in the context of gay marriage, but there are other considerations because marriage is so much older than our system of laws, and more important socially and religiously than most other things.

Privileges and Immunities (aka the Comity Clause) also in important, and is what I was talking about with Full Faith and Credit. However the Full Faith and Credit argument usually gets more air time because it has to do with administrative actions of a state, while the Comity Clause deals with fundamantal rights. Here gay rights opponents are arguing that gay marriage is not a fundamental right, thus the argument that the Comity Clause should protect it is weakened at the outset. The Comity Clause is also a part of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted with two other amendments as the Anti-Slavery Act. Those Amendments were to prevent "the incidents and badges of slavery." Now, this is not a slavery issue, but I believe that those Amendments were cited in the anit-miscengenation cases of the 60's, so its possible that they could be argued one day as a basis to allow gay marriage. Specifically the US Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscengeny law of 1924 was unconstitutional, and used the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to strike that law down. They held that marriage was a right "basic to survival," though they also specifically held that the law in question was racially motivated and did not pass the strict scrutiny that they give to laws of that nature.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Gays are a protected class for some things, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was for racial segregation. That is not to say that a new Act could not be written, or that the fundamental aspects of law that enabled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could not also be applied to gay rights, but that Act itself probably could not be used to accomplish this goal.

A great example: I've never really worried about having to quarter troops in my home, but, by God, thanks to the Third Amendment, I'm legally protected from having to do so. Woot!

You may never have had to deal with this in modern times, but governments the world round have used it as a method of control in the past. In fact, it was used here in this country by the British to quell rebellion more than once. It also prevented US tyrrany against the CSA in the Civil War, which may not have helped prevent that war, but did show that the US could be fair in the application of its laws. It is also of critical importance to the "penumbra of rights" that the US Supreme Court has relied on to decide many, many cases, primarially those involving the unstated right of privacy cited in Roe v. Wade.

[A Thing of Eternity]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

Short people.


I've put some thought into this, and short people would get the shaft.

Thanks randy.

Dude, you've lost me. I'm Randy?