Verdict on Proposition 8

[Kulindahr]

I've already heard mumblings up here among the igloos of parliament that some of the western and 'christian' members are keeping their fingers crossed for Prop 8 being upheld by SCOTUS so that they can get our clocks turned back.

So your fight is everyone's fight.

That's an important point. It's sad that in the U.S. many politicians want to override our own laws with what other nations are doing; watching that, though, many of us here forget that the process goes the other way, too.

I don't favor writing gay marriage into law; I see the path of liberty as getting government out of the business of regulating interpersonal relationships altogether, and serving no greater function than to record the decisions of people who come and tell them, "We're (married / bonded / hitched / handfasted / joined / whatever)" -- so that government is the servant, not the master.

 

[BostonPirate]

That's an important point. It's sad that in the U.S. many politicians want to override our own laws with what other nations are doing; watching that, though, many of us here forget that the process goes the other way, too.

I don't favor writing gay marriage into law; I see the path of liberty as getting government out of the business of regulating interpersonal relationships altogether, and serving no greater function than to record the decisions of people who come and tell them, "We're (married / bonded / hitched / handfasted / joined / whatever)" -- so that government is the servant, not the master.

brother man!! missed you on the forum for a few days.. must have different schedules and shit.

I DO like writing gay marriage into laws and here again is where you and I stray in our beliefs... it comes down to you trusting that someone out there will, out of the goodness of their hearts, do the right thing and treat gays equally.

I am not so trusting of humanity, and you ought not be either.

Gov't MUST provide marriage in an equitable way that religion does because gov't has no business telling marriage what to do. I easily accept that a church can decide who it wants to marry and when, but if there is no other EQUAL marriage available, and that excludes civil unions, then we are subjugated and cut off from our ability to pursue liberty and happiness.

If we had told MLK Jr that blacks were going to get somethng kinda like marriage, but just call it something else, because the white people would be upset and think their marriage was lessened by black people calling it the same thing, he would not have found it acceptable.

Just framing it that way reveals the nature of the suggestion.

Getting rid of marriage is a concept that has no meaning because it simply wont happen. Humans have ben doing it for as long as they have been writing, and something tells me it is in our instinctive nature to pair bond and to declare that publicly so that others do not interfere in the bond.

If its not practical, why waste time on thinking of it as a sollution?

 

[bike10]

A great victory in long up hill fight.

 

[White Eagle]

I've been real busy today and haven't read all of this thread yet, but I just got this in my email and there is a lot of stuff at this link about the decision. If it's already been posted, forgive me. I will read the thread if I ever get time!

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/perry-v-schwartzenegger-decision

LGBT Rights | Relationships
Perry v. Schwartzenegger - Decision



August 4, 2010


Download (343.58 KB)

This PDF file can be opened with the free Adobe Reader

press
California Marriage Ban Struck Down

case
Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Case Profile



blog

8/6/2010 | California Northern, California San Diego, California Southern | Relationships
President Obama — Now is the Time to Lead on Marriage Fairness

blog

8/5/2010 | California Northern, California San Diego, California Southern | Relationships
Why Yesterday's Prop. 8 Decision Matters

case

8/5/2010 | California Northern, California San Diego, California Southern | Relationships
Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Case Profile

blog

8/5/2010 | California Northern, California San Diego, California Southern | Relationships
Historic Victory in Prop. 8 Case, and a Call to Action

press

8/4/2010 | Relationships
California Marriage Ban Struck Down

Each of the above entries are links and there are more as I didn't want to take up all the space with the whole page.

 

[TickTockMan]

I just got an email saying Governor Schwartzenegger and AG Brown wrote a letter opposing a stay.

 

[bankside]

That's an important point. It's sad that in the U.S. many politicians want to override our own laws with what other nations are doing; watching that, though, many of us here forget that the process goes the other way, too.

I don't favor writing gay marriage into law; I see the path of liberty as getting government out of the business of regulating interpersonal relationships altogether, and serving no greater function than to record the decisions of people who come and tell them, "We're (married / bonded / hitched / handfasted / joined / whatever)" -- so that government is the servant, not the master.

I know there is a certain irony when a Canadian buys into the founding ethos of the United States and an American does not...anyway, your country invented the idea that government is "We the people.."

Of the people, by the people, and for the people means that government is not a thing foreign and imposed upon the people: it is the people. Don't forget that you actually succeeded with that whole uppity tea-in-the-harbour thing you did in Boston. The real tea party brought something worthwhile to the world.

And remembering that equation, you might say "I see the path of liberty as getting people out of the business of regulating interpersonal relationships altogether" and that sounds nice but I hesitate to endorse it because I think some relationships need to be regulated. And then you might also say "..so that the people are the servants, not the masters." Which of course sounds like a gong show.

People should neither be servants nor masters, and thus government should neither be servants nor masters.

I know I've said that before and you've disagreed before, but it is a beautiful ideal whose light I want to shed on this issue. And to stop striving for it as an ideal strikes me as a greater risk than to continue striving but not fully attain it. If the government is afraid of the people, you're doing it wrong, because then the people are afraid of each other.

 

[Kulindahr]

I DO like writing gay marriage into laws and here again is where you and I stray in our beliefs... it comes down to you trusting that someone out there will, out of the goodness of their hearts, do the right thing and treat gays equally.

I am not so trusting of humanity, and you ought not be either.

Gov't MUST provide marriage in an equitable way that religion does because gov't has no business telling marriage what to do. I easily accept that a church can decide who it wants to marry and when, but if there is no other EQUAL marriage available, and that excludes civil unions, then we are subjugated and cut off from our ability to pursue liberty and happiness.

What "goodness of their hearts"? The government should just recognize whatever people tell them about their relationships, not tell people what relationships they can have. The whole problem came from government thinking it had authority to tell people what relationships were legitimate and what not. By seeking gay marriage added to the law, gays are buying into the notion that government can legitimately define what relationships are acceptable and what not.

If we had told MLK Jr that blacks were going to get somethng kinda like marriage, but just call it something else, because the white people would be upset and think their marriage was lessened by black people calling it the same thing, he would not have found it acceptable.

Just framing it that way reveals the nature of the suggestion.

Getting rid of marriage is a concept that has no meaning because it simply wont happen. Humans have ben doing it for as long as they have been writing, and something tells me it is in our instinctive nature to pair bond and to declare that publicly so that others do not interfere in the bond.

If its not practical, why waste time on thinking of it as a sollution?

Who wants to get rid of marriage? I want government to get out of our private lives and stop judging. That's quite practical, because it puts an end to all government discrimination all at once, instead of making each group take a turn at getting their version approved.

 

[poolerboy]

Since 1942 til the present, the Supreme Court time and again has upheld marriage to be a fundamental right (whether you or I or even this district court judge disagrees with that is irrelevant to sticking to settled law). That said, that the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (per West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette).

This is because justice, properly understood, is a process, not a result. The judiciary is there to decide whether everything is properly in accord with existing statutes. In other words: 'constitutional' is not a synonym for 'good.'

One of the things I find hilarious and ironic when reading the comments at the bottom of news articles regarding this Prop 8 decision, like this one, is when opponents of yesterday's decision are quick to label Judge Walker as an "activist" yet a few lines later suggest that he should be swayed by moral philosophy and religious argument rather than law. They, in effect, disparage him for the very thing they want him to be, so long as the outcomes agree with their personal views.

 

[MoltenRock III]

One of the things I find hilarious and ironic when reading the comments at the bottom of news articles regarding this Prop 8 decision, like this one, is when opponents of yesterday's decision are quick to label Judge Walker as an "activist" yet a few lines later suggest that he should be swayed by moral philosophy and religious argument rather than law. They, in effect, disparage him for the very thing they want him to be, so long as the outcomes agree with their personal views.

"Activist judges" is a ruse to disagree with a ruling that the judge acted beyond his/her authority. Of course these twits blathering on about "activist judges" couldn't debate the actual findings of fact and legal opinion of said cases if their lives depended on it. Their usual response is, "but.... but.... but.... I'd have to actually read more than 100 pages and know my legal history and governmental laws, that's too much to ask". So they just pick "activist judge". Now by the same token if the judges rule on something they agree with, even if it is more over-reaching and truly activist, well that's just good ole "constructionist jurisprudence" at work. PUKE!

 

[palemale]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a motion to ask Judge Walker to permit his ruling to go into effect immediately so that same sex marriages can resume. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/jerry-brown-files-motion-_n_674064.html

JERRY BROWN FOR GOVERNOR!! I hope all you California JUBBers will be voting for him.

 

[Kulindahr]

One of the things I find hilarious and ironic when reading the comments at the bottom of news articles regarding this Prop 8 decision, like this one, is when opponents of yesterday's decision are quick to label Judge Walker as an "activist" yet a few lines later suggest that he should be swayed by moral philosophy and religious argument rather than law. They, in effect, disparage him for the very thing they want him to be, so long as the outcomes agree with their personal views.

But they'll say they just want him to adhere to ancient moral principles in place from before the country began.

Of course what they're missing is that in founding this country, the folks back then explicitly rejected the concept of establishing a government on such grounds, i.e. religious, and that what they're fighting for aren't principles, but strictures -- in Christian terms, they're ignoring the spirit of the law in favor of the letter thereof. They cling to the mindset that defended slavery -- in the face of the biblical principles which ruled it out utterly. In this case, Jefferson's flat statement that this is not a Christian nation is far closer to the spirit of Jesus than are they, who claim his name.

So in reality, when they decry Walker for being activist, what they want him to be is reactionary -- to take us back to things more suited to George III than to a country sprung from the principle that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

 

[CoolBlue71]

thank you.

One TOKEN republican who bucks the system does not erase all the state platforms OR The republican ballot innitiatives that made 31 states outlaw gay marriage.

Karl Rove and the Republican Party used the wedge issue as a part of their scheme in a re-election campaign that was unhealthily too close. Weak incumbent performance (George W. Bush winning just 2.46% over John Kerry in the U.S. Popular Vote in Election 2004) — and that's why states, like my own with Michigan, saw it on the ballot. But when you get to thinking about the why — that was designed for re-election; it wasn't because the GOP were truly concerned. Especially now that we're getting more GOPs being supportive.

I will say that Mr Olsen has redeemed himself to a degree, but since his wife was killed after Bush failed to protect us from the 9-11 attack, it's easy to see why he has rethought some of his ideology, seeing as he was responsible for the overthrow of the american government by the bush regime and it's thug administration.

I question what a number of political figures truly think. One thing can get said in public; something else is what they may privately believe.

Meghan McCain and campaign strategist Steve Schmidt went on record, after Election 2008, saying that the Republican Party should go for this — supporting same-sex marriage. They were thinking of an issue for the party's platform and, predictably, they were smacked down by the talking heads. Thing is, talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingram do not deliver the votes. But Meghan and Schmidt were actually smart — they're thinking of the future with the party.

It is interesting that former First Lady Laura Bush and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney have come out in support of same-sex marriage. But perhaps it's for good reason — they see it coming. That they want to be on the correct side of what is inevitable. Not Mrs. Bush so much — because she isn't a politician, but is an important figure (no less) — but for Cheney it was said, naturally, after being out of office. (Yeah, yeah — I know Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian.) That way it was safe; no touching the third rail. But I wouldn't be surprised if more political figures — not currently occupying office — come out in support of same-sex marriage.

 

[MercuryJones]

I would say it's interesting that I've seen no criticism of Judge Walker's opinion on legal grounds. I would, but for the obvious conclusion that there are no legitimate legal criticisms of his opinion.

 

[poolerboy]

I think that it is likely that the US Supreme Court will uphold the will of the American people.

The American people and the voters of California have sent a clear message saying that they do not want gay marriage.

The gay community may not like it, but this is a Christian nation. Most people in this country do believe in God and in strong family values. And I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. I think that frustrates a lot of gay people, because they don't feel like they are part of the majority.

I think if it were put to a vote today it would overwhelmingly be that marriage should be one man and one woman.

Some say that the family values issue helped President Bush win a clear solid victory over John Kerry in 2004.

But that's my honest take on it.

Since 1942 til the present, the Supreme Court time and again has upheld marriage to be a fundamental right (whether you or I or even this district court judge disagrees with that is irrelevant to sticking to settled law). That said, that the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (per West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette).

Should the district court judge have ignored binding precedent in your opinion?

 

[BostonPirate]

I think that it is likely that the US Supreme Court will uphold the will of the American people.

The American people and the voters of California have sent a clear message saying that they do not want gay marriage.

The gay community may not like it, but this is a Christian nation. Most people in this country do believe in God and in strong family values. And I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. I think that frustrates a lot of gay people, because they don't feel like they are part of the majority.

I think if it were put to a vote today it would overwhelmingly be that marriage should be one man and one woman.

Some say that the family values issue helped President Bush win a clear solid victory over John Kerry in 2004.

But that's my honest take on it.

is that your honest take on it? right next to the story about you sitting with Shia Le Boeuf and talking about the joy of gay fisting?

there is another american that would best answer your assertion of the christianity of this nation...

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

George Washington

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion

 

[MercuryJones]

is that your honest take on it?

"Honest" takes on a different meaning from someone who claims to be single but living with someone, and does so in a house he owns but also one his parents own, and alleges to illegally tape his boyfriend who he also claims doesn't exist.

 

[BostonPirate]

"Honest" takes on a different meaning from someone who claims to be single but living with someone, and does so in a house he owns but also one his parents own, and alleges to illegally tape his boyfriend who he also claims doesn't exist.

and had a private coversation with shia Le Boeuf about whether or not gay fisting was fun.

that one is a classic.... I laughed through the entire thing!! life is good. Hey look. the guy is entertaining even if he makes half of everything he says up.

 

[MercuryJones]

Oh I missed that one.

I was laid low yesterday with a little case of food poisoning, but nothing that came out of me that day was as noxious as the the things that come out of CE&P trolls.

 

[philusmc]

I think that it is likely that the US Supreme Court will uphold the will of the American people.

The American people and the voters of California have sent a clear message saying that they do not want gay marriage.

The gay community may not like it, but this is a Christian nation. Most people in this country do believe in God and in strong family values. And I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. I think that frustrates a lot of gay people, because they don't feel like they are part of the majority.

I think if it were put to a vote today it would overwhelmingly be that marriage should be one man and one woman.

Some say that the family values issue helped President Bush win a clear solid victory over John Kerry in 2004.

But that's my honest take on it.

At one time, not too many decades ago, whites wanted just a "white nation". I think also wrapped in "christian" love. Well, we has humans evolve -- slowy, but surely. In my humble opinion, God created each and every one of us. As a gay man, I can tell you that I did not choose to be gay - no sir, I didn't. This is the way God made me just as he made the hetero's too. I'm not disappointed that I am gay, just disappointed in my fellowman to understand what equality really is.
Some of the spin is that gays are trying to dictate or impose their will on the straight community -- really, isn't it the other way around. Also, the lame argument that gay marriages will be detriment to the conventional marriage between a man and a women. Well folks, have you looked at the statistics on straight marriages -- they really don't need any help from anyone with destroying that institution --they've (the straight community) has done that all by themselves. Gays will do more to "sanctify" marriage than the straight community has done recently. Hiding behind "christian love" -- well that's pure b.s. and most of those spewing such nonsense know it too.

 

[MercuryJones]

The American people and the voters of California have sent a clear message saying that they do not want gay marriage.

I don't know how to translate this into troll-ese for you, but the Constitution has a different message, which Judge Walker articulated.