Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[fdrjk]

even though the concept of gay marriage will never have a direct effect on me, there is one part of the prop 8 struggle that would, and this ruling addresses it:

The problem I see with prop 8 has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the ability of a simple majority in the state of California to ammend the constitution to deny a sub-group of the population equal treatment, and how they could do so without any real checks and balances beyond taking it to court and spending huge amounts of money to argue about it for years before anything is done.

If a small but wealthy group of our state's voters don't like something about a specific minority group for whatever reason (perhaps because of some fairy tale they were told while they were growing up) they could outlaw it with nothing but the application of enough money and signatures to get it on the ballot, and enough time and money spent on advertising the shit out of it in a confusing manner to the masses so that they could scrape up 51% support for the proposition.

This has lead to our state's constitution becoming a ridiculous document that has very little in common with what is good for our state, and a lot more in common with what the small groups in our state that wield the greatest amount of dollars happen to want at the time.

Our broken system doesn't create effective government, and it leaves huge leeway for radical groups with enough funding to shove their opinions down everyone else's throats with the force of law, at no expense to their own rights.

I agree. Some radical groups do whatever they can to get what they want into law with absolutely no expense for other people or what might happen afterwards. 

[|iR|Focalor]

- Why it would be unreasonable to allow majority vote to reinstate slavery
 - Why it would be unreasonable to allow majority vote to reinstate segregation
 - Why it would be unreasonable to allow majority vote to reinstate prohibitions on interracial marriage
   (etc.)

I was being somewhat of a facetious asshole with my earlier comments... somewhat. According to the Constitution, it appears as though denying homosexuals the right to be married violates civil rights in a way. There are no laws that make homosexuality a crime, although I believe there are some archaic laws on the books in some states that defines sodomy (even the non-prison consentual variety ) as illegal. These laws should probably be done away with seeing as how adult stores in all 50 states (as far as I know) get away with selling pornographic videos containing acts of sodomy. Then again, states have ass-backwards ways like that. Marijuana is still illegal in most states, and yet head shops can legally sell hash pipes and bongs as long as they call them tobacco accessories or water pipes. A lot of them post signs in prominent places stating things like "If it rhymes with SONG, you're saying it WRONG!", and that's how they get around it.

Like I said, I was being facetious somewhat. You can legalize gay marriage, abolish slavery, and abolish segregation (and then have that particular race re-instate it by way of colleges like Morehouse, Spellman, and Morris-Brown...  ), but you can't prohibit people from hating who they want without violating that persons civil rights.

I have to agree with PeeWee's observations. Laws are obviously made and repealed based on mob rule. The Rodney King case is a prime example. The officers on trial were acquitted. A bunch of people started going apeshit and destroyed the cities of Los Angeles and Atlanta. They circumvented established laws, retried them, and made the mob content. Maybe Dr. King's ideas of non-violent protesting worked somewhat back in the 1950's and 1960's, but it's quite obvious that it ONLY works when there are a vast number doing it. This works for 2 reasons. First of all, the government doesn't want the large number of protesters turning violent. Second, the lawmakers don't want to appear to be bigoted and lose their precious votes and precious high-paying job. No one should kid themselves. Nothing EVER got done by appealing to the government in a completely non-threatening way.

[quadz]

but you can't prohibit people from hating who they want without violating that persons civil rights.

Sure, that would be criminalizing thought (thoughtcrime).

In much the same way as we can't prohibit others from feeling sadly embarrased for the haters, (who apparently spend more than average time and energy obsessing about other people's penises?)

[Sgt. Dick]

If I spend time thinking about same sex relations, it is about lesbians.  Young, Hot Lesbians 

[|iR|Focalor]

In much the same way as we can't prohibit others from feeling sadly embarrased for the haters

I hate that you feel sadly embarrassed. You left an S out of that word. Was that intentional? Why would a person curtail their usage of long S sounds? What are you hiding?

If I spend time thinking about same sex relations, it is about lesbians.  Young, Hot Lesbians 

It's only "homosexuality" if it's two dudes, or two women that are ugly. I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible.... in the middle part.

[quadz]

I hate that you feel sadly embarrassed. You left an S out of that word. Was that intentional? Why would a person curtail their usage of long S sounds? What are you hiding?

I'm apparently hiding my ass, which regrettably has expanded since I went on an all pasta, beer, and cheese diet.


 

[|iR|Focalor]

Ok, well my joke was about how gay people say their S's. Your joke (if it was) went right over my head. 

[The Dreaming Dragon]

If two people choose to forge a relationship so entrenching into each other's lives that they are codependant on each other,then they will need to have a spouse's protections,no matter what gender each party is. I would recommend some sort of "social contract" that would mirror the rights shared by hetero couples,but without the need of some religious rubber stamp to declare it a valid union. But Marriage is Big JuJu and to properly entrench the concept into these primative forebrains the term should be resorted to at least for a while. Let 'em jump the broom,dress up like Klingons and massage their prostates with Ken dolls for all I care

One commentator had an interesting point: imagine two old ladies,close friends for decades,outliving all their relatives but living with each other chastely but amiably.
Now one gets SICK. The other who knows her best and cares the most for her has NO rights in what happens to her friend,butif they were 'married" then she would. And I bet that jappens a lot.