|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I've been holding myself back from posting about this to give myself some time to calm down. Now that it's been a couple weeks, here is what Keith Olbermann has to say about it.
Before you start dismissing this as an emotional rambling, keep this in mind. THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR MANY JUST LIKE IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR THE INTERRACIAL COUPLES IN THE OLD DAYS. Just watch the following. The props that got passed in other states about only married couples could adopt children remind me of how black folks were "legally" denied their right to vote. How? Some states proclaimed the seperate but equal crap and then passed policies that required people to pass certain tests in order to vote. The tests were designed to make black folks fail. There were other "legal" ploys to make sure it was anything but "seperate but equal". Here is a rhetorical question (that means don't answer). Those of you without a beating heart. How the fucking hell do you sleep at night having done what you've done? I say this now. Fuck your religious moral high ground. Just because you are delusional enough to think you have the moral high ground doesn't mean you can deny people their right to happiness. </end rant> Added by edit. Here is something to think about, you morons. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
Hi Taz.
I remember reading not too long ago the thread about homosexual marriages. The sound arguments from those that favored gay marriage were most provocative. I'm upset myself that prop 8 passed, for I voted against it. But, as I've heard and read, there have been and continue to be massive protests against prop 8's passing. The Supreme court case of Loving v. Virginia and the 14th amendment are, to the best of my understanding, enough to show the unconstitutionality of prop 8's passing. Not only that, but I've heard that a simple majority vote isn't qualified as a legal method in revising the California Constitution. I have to research this further, of course. Anyway, let's hope the protests continue, and homosexuals in California, and eventually the nation, win their right to equal protection under the law, even though it's already been granted to them under the 14th amendment. Lastly, I'm curious as to just how upset you were when you first heard of prop 8's passing. If this is you after you've given yourself "some time to calm down"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I'm not from California, so I couldn't vote on prop8 but if I was I would have voted against it solely for the reasons you brought up and also since it does nothing to change marriage except grant the rights to all. Why would anybody, in his right mind, vote against that?
Edited by bluescat48, : Punctuation There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
BMG writes:
I shot about a thousand rounds at paper targets. Lastly, I'm curious as to just how upset you were when you first heard of prop 8's passing. If this is you after you've given yourself "some time to calm down"... Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
Why would anybody, in his right mind, vote against that? There are a host of posters that give their opinions on this thread, here, that I referred to earlier. I think I understand the reasons why many are against granting equal rights to homosexuals, but I simply don't agree with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
I shot about a thousand rounds at paper targets. Sounds like a good way to blow off some steam. I have to say, though, I was elated when I heard protests mounted immediately after the election outcome was announced against 8's passing. This battle for civil rights has accelerated so much that neither natural nor supernatural arguments can perturb it's advocates from obtaining what is lawfully theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I think I understand the reasons why many are against granting equal rights to homosexuals, but I simply don't agree with them. From what I can see, the only reason that most of these people are against gays is religious, which should have no place in politics. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: From what I can see, the only reason that most of these people are against gays is religious, which should have no place in politics. I like it when it's referred to as "over-inflated sense of personal entitlement". Or, basically, it's a big ego thing. I really never thought something like this could go backwards in modern times. I was very surprised to hear that the removal of the 'no gay marriage' ban was overturned. Is it just me, or has this ban-removal-overturning been a lot quieter in the media than the original removal of the ban? Like they're almost ashamed to mention that the ban is back in place? It's so obviously an equal human rights issue that the idea of this progress going backwards is mind-numbing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4455 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
I kind of see why some people are against gay marriage, but I disagree with them. I would have voted against prop 8.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
San Diego Scientist Junior Member (Idle past 5602 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
First of all, I agree with you that prop8 should never have passed. I am a California resident an I voted against it. Also, this is my first post here so try not to be to rough on me.
On the surface it seems that the Loving case would give adequate precedent for the quick overturn of this amendment. There are a couple of problems with that thought however. The loving case was decided under the strict scrutiny doctrine because African Americans are considered a “suspect class” group of people. In order to qualify as such a group must meet all of the following characteristics (from wikipedia) 1. The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)2. The group shares a history of discrimination. 3. The group is politically impotent. 4. The group is a discrete and insular minority. (see U.S. v. Carolene Products) I believe that the justices will clearly uphold that homosexuals meet conditions 2 and 4. Condition 1 is widely accepted as true, but can be argued. Immutability is a relatively high standard to meet. According to Immutable Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster to be immutable is to be “not capable of or susceptible to change”. Lawyers for 8 will bring up cases of people who have “changed” their sexuality. Whether or not this is real, or if the people were just confused this brings doubt on the idea that the are not capable of change. On point 3, the 75 million dollars and huge number of votes obtained by the no on 8 group works against the idea of their political impotency.If these conditions are not met then the government only needs to pass the rational barrier test to keep the law in place. The revision vs amendment argument is also interesting but probably can’t stand. California is a weird place and almost anything can be an amendment. In my opinion those against 8 should focus on getting a new amendment on the ballot striking down 8 and be done with it. I think that such a measure on the midterm general election would have a good chance at passing. I would personally wait 4 years until the next presidential to do it because fewer signatures would be needed, but that’s just me. thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I'd be curious to see the link to the Wiki article you got that from. I'm fairly certain that strict scrutiny applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of religion, and that certainly is not an immutable characteristic.
As far as political impotence goes, one need look no further than Romer v. Evans for proof of the political impotence of homosexuals. In Romer, Colorado voters had amended their Constitution to prohibit any governmental action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." It's hard to imagine anything that would more vividly demonstrate a group's political impotence. Of course, a court inclined to do so could distinguish Romer on the basis of homosexuals having more political clout in California than in Colorado. But then, the passage of Prop 8 strongly suggests that would be a distinction without a difference. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Your conclusion that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to homosexuals doesn't mean a court would default to application of rational basis.
First, strict scrutiny also applies to governmental actions that infringe on fundamental rights, and courts have uniformly held that matters of marriage and how one arranges one's family unit are fundamental rights. See Loving and Moore v. City of East Cleveland, where the city of East Cleveland sought to define "family" for zoning purposes in a way that excluded a grandmother living with her son and two grandchildren who were cousins. Thus, Prop 8 is vulnerable to strict scrutiny for reasons unrelated to the homosexual aspect. Second, even if a court found strict scrutiny doesn't apply, that doesn't mean that the level of scrutiny would fall to rational basis. There is a level between the two, called intermediate scrutiny. There, the challenged governmental action must be shown to be substantially related to an important governmental purpose. Under either intermediate scrutiny or rational basis, the government needs to show what the purpose is behind the challenged governmental action. The purpose most often cited in support of anti-gay marriage legislation is to protect "traditional" marriage. However, I have yet to hear anyone give any kind of rational description of how gay marriage threatens "traditional" marriage. If gays are allowed to marry, it won't change my marriage in any way, shape, form or fashion, nor will it change anyone else's. Unless government can point to a purpose that is even rationally related to the legislation, it can be struck. BTW, welcome to EvC! Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Just to point out:
The IN RE Marriage Cases were decided on strict scrutiny.
In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review ” “strict scrutiny” ” is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, [I][B]we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here[/i][/b] because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents ” like gender, race, and religion ”a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple. Emphasis added. And given that the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a fundamental right, there is something to be said that Prop 8 satisfies the definition of a "substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equlization, 22 Cal.3d 208) which characterizes a revision. Removing the fundamental rights of citizens is not a small thing. Personally, I don't hold much hope given that the original decision was 3-2 and homophobia is still rampant. Despite the declaration that gay people fall under "strict scrutiny," I will never underestimate the ability of people to forget what they just said and follow through on their claims. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Well, in omre light-hearted news, gays can now adopt in Florida. Seems a Miami Circuit court struck down the 31 year old ban:
http://news.yahoo.com/...s;_ylt=AigSDpfbdtjTHYaYt50aLQdvzwcF Conservatives, predictably, are screaming "judicial activism! judicial activism!" (well, maybe not screaming). I wonder if those against judicial activism are against any activist judges that support their causes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi kuresu,
Judicial activism? You're kidding? Because if there's one group of people who strike me as being unlikely champions of gay rights, it's judges. Are there really people who honestly believe that there are significant numbers of judges out there with a a zealous determination to push gay rights? WTF? I mean, those robes look a little bit camp but, seriously... "Judicial activism" is just a mantra. All it means is "A decision has been made that I don't like." Boo-Hoo. And good on the Florida courts for once! Mutate and Survive. "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024