Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MERGED]

[construct]

I've since figured out In re Marriage Cases. In re Marriage Cases held that marriage is a right protected by the equal protection provision and thus a statute that restricted that right violated equal protection.

But the previous cases had concerned propositions claiming to be amendments that restricted rights. Some of those cases had held such propositions to actually be revisions. Although this precedent was inconsistent with later decisions, those decisions did not specifically overturn the earlier holding that such restrictions were revisions. This case also restricted a right--the right not to be placed in a second-class status by denying the right to the name "marriage." How were the earlier precedents not overturned?

Edit--to straighten out my confused syntax and misstatement about Marriage Cases.

The opinion can be downloaded at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/. The case name is Strauss v. Horton. The opinion is 186 pages long in Word, and it will take me a while to work through it.

 

[Kulindahr]

The irony is that some of the loudest bitchers in this thread are a part of the group that CONSISTENTLY shoots down gay marriage, old people.

They need to look in their own backyard before complaining. I hold them more responsible than judges and the president.

Oh, that's brilliant -- you hold people who are fighting for what you want responsible for you not having it yet.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey buddy. Yep, that's what happens when our rights as a minority are stepped on.

I tried refraining and I was. But to see some older posters come into that thread and blame Obama for the gay marriage failure when it's their age group that is the culprit.

I couldn't help but point it out. It was the pot calling the kettle black.

Here we go back to bigotry.

But more to the point.... You're blaming people for something because of their age; the blaming of Obama arguably has some substance to it, because he could have spoken out and didn't.

You should go look at the numbers on CNN. And Gallup. Most people 18-30 voted FOR gay marriage.

All it takes is a majority. And the majority of 18-30 year olds think you should have the same rights as heteros.

Get where I'm going?

Maybe you should go read my post again. I said:

"your rights are still being infringed by millions of voters in the 18-30 group"

and that is an entirely correct statement.

I see where you're going: your bigotry has you ignoring objective facts again.
Like with BearDaddy, where instead of objectively responding to his statement, you slandered him because of his age.

 

[Kulindahr]

I might have this wrong but more specifically, from what I understand, they ruled that Prop 8 didn't substantively restrict equal protection because all it did was strip away gay's right to use the word "marriage."

Time for a new angle, perhaps: shoot for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to freedom of association, including equality before the law of equivalent relationships.

It troubles me that that is the right at issue here; there's no right to marriage, but there is a right to freedom of association -- and it violates equality before the law if some forms of association are given benefits when equivalent forms are not.

I wish someone had brought that up in the arguments, because it seems to me a great grounds for a SCOTUS appeal.

 

[construct]

Time for a new angle, perhaps: shoot for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to freedom of association, including equality before the law of equivalent relationships.

Oops! That's what the Calif. Sup. Ct. did! It held that there is equality before the law between marriage and civil unions.

Try again for a way to get polygamy in there.

 

[hotatlboi]

One thing I'm concerned about with this ruling. Gavin Newsom is on CNN talking about this going to the SCOTUS. Someone could launch an equal protection challenge in federal court based on this double class that has been created (already married vs cannot marry) and it could go there where we will not win in it's current form.

 

[Lostlover]

Oh, that's brilliant -- you hold people who are fighting for what you want responsible for you not having it yet.

No, I hold a majority of a certain demographic responsible for continued bigotry.

If you don't support that, why the paranoia?

If you don't support that, why take my comments to heart?

If you don't support that, I'm clearly not talking to you.

If you don't support that, you should be equally as mad as I am.

I said I find it odd that they'll so quickly blame judges or the president when it's their group that is ground zero for all this non-sense.

Look inward first.

 

[Lostlover]

Here we go back to bigotry.

But more to the point.... You're blaming people for something because of their age; the blaming of Obama arguably has some substance to it, because he could have spoken out and didn't.





I see where you're going: your bigotry has you ignoring objective facts again.
Like with BearDaddy, where instead of objectively responding to his statement, you slandered him because of his age.

That's what I'm talking about. Typical American response. "Don't blame me. Blame someone else."

The president didn't vote in the California election (he was kinda busy running for the POTUS). He doesn't make laws.

This ain't hot potato. You pass the buck so easily to be taken seriously here.

"People around my age voted in bigotry but I'm going to ignore that because that would 'include me' and start blaming the judges and the president for not overriding what my group did."

Do you think this would have been an issue today if people in your age group voted a little less bigoted in November? You know, voted like people who witnessed the civil rights movement, the internment of Japanese Americans (I know you didn't witness that but guess what -- there are people older than you) and the emancipation of women from the household? You know voted like people who are tired of seeing discrimination in America? (I'm soooooooooooooooo expecting none of this to be answered, but the only reason I'm writing this is for others. We saw how you cowered in that New Hampshire Gay Marriage thread. I just asked you the end all be all question to stop the bickering between us and you ran with your purse under your arm.)

Finally, let me deny you your rights and say you're not an equal before you call me bigoted. You toss around that term all too easily.

 

[hotatlboi]

No, I hold a majority of a certain demographic responsible for continued bigotry. If you don't support that, why the paranoia?

I think what you find if you look deeper is that, even more likely to predict whether someone supports equality than age is whether or not they personally know someone who is gay. Almost all young people do. A lot of older people do not, most likely because anyone they would have known stayed in the closet their whole life.

 

[Lostlover]

I think what you find if you look deeper is that, even more likely to predict whether someone supports equality than age is whether or not they personally know someone who is gay. Almost all young people do. A lot of older people do not, most likely because anyone they would have known stayed in the closet their whole life.

I don't think this is true but I can't deny it because I don't think there are raw numbers on second part (BearDaddy and Kuli hate numbers but still).

I don't buy this theory solely on them knowing who Elton John is probably a lot longer than we've been alive. And believe this, in the 60's and 50's and 40's, they had gay relatives too! No way, I know! But gay people existed then!

The whole "I don't know one of them so I can be ignorant" excuse only goes so far.

By the way, I've never lived in a third world country that tortures people for confessions but I know with good certainty that torture is wrong.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't think this is true but I can't deny it because I don't think there are raw numbers on second part (BearDaddy and Kuli hate numbers but still).

I forget where I saw it but I saw numbers on it somewhere. I think it might have been exit polling on prop 8 or something else.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oops! That's what the Calif. Sup. Ct. did! It held that there is equality before the law between marriage and civil unions.

Try again for a way to get polygamy in there.

Yes -- it recognized equality before the law for a select pair of relationships, not for all equivalent relationships.

They need to think outside the box.

 

[Kulindahr]

One thing I'm concerned about with this ruling. Gavin Newsom is on CNN talking about this going to the SCOTUS. Someone could launch an equal protection challenge in federal court based on this double class that has been created (already married vs cannot marry) and it could go there where we will not win in it's current form.

Ouch -- good insight there.

Scary.

 

[Kulindahr]

The irony is that some of the loudest bitchers in this thread are a part of the group that CONSISTENTLY shoots down gay marriage, old people.

They need to look in their own backyard before complaining. I hold them more responsible than judges and the president.

Oh, that's brilliant -- you hold people who are fighting for what you want responsible for you not having it yet.

No, I hold a majority of a certain demographic responsible for continued bigotry.

If you don't support that, why the paranoia?

If you don't support that, why take my comments to heart?

If you don't support that, I'm clearly not talking to you.

If you don't support that, you should be equally as mad as I am.

I said I find it odd that they'll so quickly blame judges or the president when it's their group that is ground zero for all this non-sense.

Look inward first.

You specifically said that you hold some people in this thread "more responsible than judges and the president". But those people you're holding responsible have fought for the things you want.
So you're condemning the very people who are on your side.

That's what I pointed out -- and then you do your regular retreat into claiming you were talking about statistics, to cover yourself.

It would be a simple matter for you to write more precisely. That you fail to do so reveals bigotry.

See, "their group" is the group that achieved everything you enjoy now: they're not the ones who have been opposing progress! To keep lumping the innocent with the guilty is either foolishness, laziness, or bigotry.

 

[Lostlover]

I forget where I saw it but I saw numbers on it somewhere. I think it might have been exit polling on prop 8 or something else.

I'm not saying I doubt it. I'm just saying I'm not letting the bigots off the hook. I believe I've heard something like what you said, but I'm not making an excuse for them.

I'm sure if those whites that hoses blacks down in the 50's and 60's knew black people well they probably wouldn't be so up in arms when a black wants a seat on the bus.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's what I'm talking about. Typical American response. "Don't blame me. Blame someone else."

The president didn't vote in the California election (he was kinda busy running for the POTUS). He doesn't make laws.

This ain't hot potato. You pass the buck so easily to be taken seriously here.

"People around my age voted in bigotry but I'm going to ignore that because that would 'include me' and start blaming the judges and the president for not overriding what my group did."

Do you think this would have been an issue today if people in your age group voted a little less bigoted in November? You know, voted like people who witnessed the civil rights movement, the internment of Japanese Americans (I know you didn't witness that but guess what -- there are people older than you) and the emancipation of women from the household? You know voted like people who are tired of seeing discrimination in America? (I'm soooooooooooooooo expecting none of this to be answered, but the only reason I'm writing this is for others. We saw how you cowered in that New Hampshire Gay Marriage thread. I just asked you the end all be all question to stop the bickering between us and you ran with your purse under your arm.)

Finally, let me deny you your rights and say you're not an equal before you call me bigoted. You toss around that term all too easily.

You show yourself as bigoted every time you label people -- which you do several times above.

See, "my group" didn't "vote in bigotry" -- I'm not part of any such group, and never have been. Nick isn't part of any such group, either; I doubt that anyone on JUB is.

As for the New Hampshire thread, I recall that a mod asked you to stop that baiting, and to leave the topic in its own thread.

My rights -- you're not interested in them; you've shown that: you only wnat your privileges, and screw the rest of the world.
Or are you ready to switch from supporting privileges for a few and support a fight for equality before the law for all?

 

[Lostlover]

You specifically said that you hold some people in this thread "more responsible than judges and the president". But those people you're holding responsible have fought for the things you want.
So you're condemning the very people who are on your side.

That's what I pointed out -- and then you do your regular retreat into claiming you were talking about statistics, to cover yourself.

It would be a simple matter for you to write more precisely. That you fail to do so reveals bigotry.

See, "their group" is the group that achieved everything you enjoy now: they're not the ones who have been opposing progress! To keep lumping the innocent with the guilty is either foolishness, laziness, or bigotry.

I'm not playing the semantics game. I said, again, the biggest bitchers in this thread look outward (blaming the presidential candidate and judges FIRST) without looking inward first (towards people in their age demographic).

They have no leg to stand on. We wouldn't be here today if the older people that voted in November were more tolerant. FACT.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think what you find if you look deeper is that, even more likely to predict whether someone supports equality than age is whether or not they personally know someone who is gay. Almost all young people do. A lot of older people do not, most likely because anyone they would have known stayed in the closet their whole life.

That's quite true -- the figures have been posted previously -- but LL isn't interested in facts, unless they make older people look bad, or can be used to cover his ass when he says false or illogical things.

The exceptions to that sociological phenomenon almost all fall into the category we call "religious right"... irrespective of age.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole "I don't know one of them so I can be ignorant" excuse only goes so far.

It's not an excuse: it's a correlation in the data, and thus a sociological observation.

It's a thing like college friends who swore that eating a dish with rat in it would make them vomit -- but then when an Asian friend cooked for them, and used rat meat in the stir-fry, they didn't get sick at all; they liked it. And later, when he told them, some swore they'd felt sick, but a good number thought about it and changed their minds.

It's just another part of human nature, sort of a "law of familiarity". It's part of the same aspect of human nature that explains why some who fought for gay rights early on aren't any longer: the territory they're entering is too alien to them.

 

[Lostlover]

You show yourself as bigoted every time you label people -- which you do several times above.

See, "my group" didn't "vote in bigotry" -- I'm not part of any such group, and never have been. Nick isn't part of any such group, either; I doubt that anyone on JUB is.

As for the New Hampshire thread, I recall that a mod asked you to stop that baiting, and to leave the topic in its own thread.

My rights -- you're not interested in them; you've shown that: you only wnat your privileges, and screw the rest of the world.
Or are you ready to switch from supporting privileges for a few and support a fight for equality before the law for all?

I suck dick and am a male, but don't call me gay or a man. I don't belong to either group.

Asking a question is not baiting. The mod gave no warning or points or any penalty. He thought I was going there and I reassured him I wasn't.

You're still hurt to this day from that question I asked. I didn't ask you the size of your penis or how much money you had in the bank. I asked you a hypothetical question that put a hole in your argument and YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER. Now I see, you probably reported the post to the moderator claiming I was baiting and I wasn't (hence no penalty or anything, mods can verify this too).

And you say you don't have any hurt feelings?