Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[fdrjk]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/04/proposition-8-gay-marriage-california?CMP=AFCYAH

On August 4th, US district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay and lesbian marriage imposed by the Proposition 8 referendum in 2008 – when it was backed by 52% of California's voters – violated the right to equal protection under the US Constitution. Judge Walker's ruling in the case of Perry versus Schwarzenegger witheringly dismissed the arguments put forward by supporters of Proposition 8, saying they failed "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

I personally think this a great thing, but I would like to know what everyone else thinks. 

[quadz]

I'm pleased; but of course the decision will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court -- which, "based on analysis of four sets of political science data" is said to be the most conservative court in decades.

Regarding Prop 8, judge Walker's findings seem eminently reasonable:

    * "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

    * "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

    * "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

    * "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

    * "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

    * "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

    * "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

    * "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


Nevertheless, the decision is sure to bring out the kooks; for instance:

Posted by: nancy | August 04, 2010 at 01:53 PM

still this is wrong very wrong.... this country only digs itself into a bigger hole each time. VERY SAD!

“Love without God can take wicked turns and disguise itself as a noble concept, such as “compassion”, “social-justice” or “dignity”. If ever there was a nation fallen prey to false love, is it’s the United States. Under cunning guises of compassion, freedom, understanding, and choice, our society has accepted homosexual behavior, euthanasia, and abortion all diabolical and false imitations of true concepts. As we can see, without God true love is unsustainable, of course those faithful to the Gospel know that Love can’t be separated from God, no matter how much people desire such an amputation. All Love is a determination to be God-like…. True Love is not a feeling, it is a decision. If love is God-like, then it is God-Centered and can not survive without his presence.” –f JC

[fdrjk]

  Im just glad for now. Although it would be nice if the appeal was shot down   

[|iR|Focalor]

This is the United States of America. They may be gaining the right to get married, but I still have the right to hate whoever I want to.

[|iR|Focalor]

Yay!! Hooray!!! Go ahead and have a parade now...

[quadz]

Yay!! Hooray!!! Go ahead and have a parade now...

fag. 

[|iR|Focalor]

Dude, I'm totally gay for you.

[Sgt. Dick]

The bible said Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve    

[Barton]

The bible said Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve    

Sure, if you actually believe in The Bible.

[|iR|Focalor]

I believe it takes too long to read in one sitting.

[peewee_RotA]

My problems with this, and why rulings like this are unconstitutional.

First came a person who then had to interact with people. In order to properly interact those people developed a society and once that society became too big, that society invented the first government. Ever since then, and to this day, government is a layer of authority that sits on top of society. Government is a concept built on top of society and without government, society would still exist (even though there'd probably be much more crime) and without society government could not exist.

Governments were invented, and are not dis-invented, because they provide an important function to society. They establish and enforce certain rules. However, there are rules, rights, and civil rights. The modern (and when I say modern, I'm talking since the 1700's) understanding of civil rights is that they are established by society. The society forces the government to respect these rights. Without that resistance to government, government naturally infringes on those rights.

One such infringement is the attempt to redefine civil rights on the government level. Remember that the bill of rights, even the constitution, are a constructs of the needs established by first the person, then the people, and finally their society. The amendment process was used to restrict the federal government to avoid it from doing just that.

So let's analyze what happened. Did the U.S. government invent marriage? No government invented marriage. It's a societal concept, a civil right, defined by society longer ago than any government has existed. A portion of society is trying to redefine the term. A larger portion of society denied that. So if marriage has been defined as one thing for millenniums, and if a smaller portion of society is attempting to redefine it, and government is a response to societal needs, then is proposition 8 an attempt to define marriage, or is it an attempt to prevent government from being allowed to redefined it?

If a majority of society has decided that marriage is a civil right with a specific definition, then any interference by government in that definition is an impinging action. I would argue that proposition 8 is not an effective means to accomplish this, and that being a civil issue that needs government to stop interfering, it should be brought up as an amendment. However, I would also be more comfortable if the amendments were made to state constitutions only on an individual basis. I don't believe that there are many civil rights issues left that are appropriate to decide on the federal level. Both fortunately and unfortunately, society is a majority rules situation. Regardless of the status of the proposition, it seems as if Californian society has spoken.

[peewee_RotA]

^^post made early after a long night of work... I can't guarantee that any sentence forms a complete thought. Also, I only seem to post in this board when I'm tired as all crap... I'll leave it here for the wolves anyway.

[quadz]

Did the U.S. government invent marriage? No government invented marriage. It's a societal concept, a civil right, defined by society longer ago than any government has existed. A portion of society is trying to redefine the term. A larger portion of society denied that. So if marriage has been defined as one thing for millenniums

Whaaat?

Marriage has been inconstant over societies and cultures.  The biggest sham in all this is when the bible thumpers get on TV screeching about the sanctity of marriage.  When in the bible, we see over and over that god's most exalted servants, his chosen patriarchs, prophets and kings, have multiple wives, and slave-girl concubines to boot.  Yet these people get on TV and bleat about how marriage has forever been this one-man one-woman thing for ever and ever, amen.

It hasn't.

The closest we'll probably get to something (relatively) unchanging over the timescales we're talking about would be our genetic code.  Our human/primate/mammalian/animal nature, if you will.

Remember that the bill of rights, even the constitution, are a constructs of the needs established by first the person, then the people, and finally their society.

It seems it should be abundantly clear that the struggle for equality independent of race, gender, and yes sexual orientation is the important overarching historical storyline here.  And indeed the struggle stretches back over time, but gains have been relatively recent.

I mean for crying out loud, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in numerous states until 1967!  Which yet again gives the lie to the claim that marriage has been some unchanging construct over time.  It was FORTY YEARS AGO damn it, that interracial marriage was still widely prohibited.

^^post made early after a long night of work... I can't guarantee that any sentence forms a complete thought. Also, I only seem to post in this board when I'm tired as all crap... I'll leave it here for the wolves anyway.

I'm tired too (not slept yet.)  Maybe I can frame my remaining question this way:

It seems to me there's a principle involved here:

 - 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.)

Does the principle have a name?  It seems evident that it's related to the long slow struggle for equal rights mentioned above.


Regards,

quadz

[haunted]

haven't read anything posted after yet but I felt compelled to respond after peewee's post....

How in anyway is government a pre-req for society? lol? Are you talking about civilization? I guess that would make a little more sense, but only if you bend the definition of civilization(meaning in order to be civilized, a group must have government). Society spawned from civilization, though.

The 1700's is when the contemporary idea for civil rights began???? No.. lol. And I still don't see how government solely provides function for society. I actually live in a place where the government has very little effect, in a number of ways. It's what isolation does. My island, was actually the only place to send a representative to D.C. in the antebellum period to try to secede from the Union (and the confederacy for that matter).. it's always been like that here, which kind of sucks because then you're being governed by lastnames 

The U.S. Government did not invent marriage. I know what you're trying to say, kind of, in relation to your point but it doesn't work that way when the concept of marriage as literally ALREADY been invented. I know you're trying to look at the bigger picture......... but SO am I. Here's how I look at it:

Any reason I could EVER think of to restrict gay rights is unfair.. Bottom line. California is the most progressive state and always has been within my lifetime, as well as anyone else who posts on this site. Seemingly anything that happens in california, will also happen to the rest of the country 1-2 decades later. So give it 20 years and fags will be eloping on your doorstep, wonderful isn't it?

[Whirlingdervish]

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.