About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

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=AigSDpfbdtjTHYaYt50aLQdvzwcFConservatives, 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?

You nailed it on the head.And yes, there are people over here who claim judicial activism over a lot of things. I think it largely stems from a relatively silly battle over our constitution. There are two camps: enforce what the constitution meant 200 years ago, or use it as a living document (simplified both). The former is like our current SCOTUS chief justice. The latter is like that Miami judge. Since you all across the pond (or in my case, the north sea) don't have a constitution in a strict sense, . . .?When it comes to the issues of rights, those who want to restrict rights aren't very good at reading our constitution. The 9th amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", which effectively means that the list of rights in the constitution and amendments is not the end all be all, and that all possible rights are to be protected. So yeah, the right to privacy (behind abortion) is protected and found within the constitution. The right to marry other races is protected by the constitution. The right to marry other sexes is protected by the constitution.So yeah, prop 8 in california could very well be unconstitutional. As is the ban just struck down in Florida.

Tyranny of the majority, if anything, is actually worse. By your logic, so long as the majority thinks it's right, so what? If the majority thinks that all people should be killed when they are 70 years old, would you agree that the people decided and it should be law?And while California has a reputation for being liberal, the southern portion is quite conservative. Besides, it's like saying Virginia is really conservative (CA has Ah-nuld, VA has Kaine). And the margin of victory? 52.3 to 47.7. A 4.5 point spread. A much smaller spread than the previous iniative to vote down gay marriage rights. And it may have been unconstitutional.Besides, there's always the 9th amendment to the US constitution, which seems to protect rights not stipulated in the document (at least, that's how it's currently interpretated). And since federal law overrides state law, prop 8 would be illegal because it denies a right to a group of people.

Well, american citizens, for example, cannot be knighted. I'm not sure if you could equate marriage with noble titles, and I don't think that's where rueh was going.

I'm sorry, but does a Ph.D give you legal rights? Not that I'm aware of.Marriage, and knighthood (used to at any rate), do.So long as marriage bestows legal rights, government has a reason to stick its nose into the issue. Of course, marriage without legal rights attached to it is pretty silly, as then there's no real reason to marry (and marriage for love is a relatively new concept, so if we're going traditional, it's out for the count).

Except Taz isn't being bigoted. A bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices and intolerances. That, or a person who treats members of another group (generally racial/ethnic) with hatred and intolerance.The trick is, being intolerant of intolerance is not being a bigot.If anything, Taz is just being a touch insulting, but "seperate but equal" is bullshit and should be called out as such.

do you make it a point to be patently silly?Public restrooms are hardly equal. The women's side does not have urinals. See, I can be silly too, and it doesn't help the discussion one bit.You know what "separate but equal" is, or rather, was in the case of segregation. That's what people mean when they use the term. That's what the supreme court case Brown vs. Topeka Board of Ed. was referring to.

As said earlier, prop 8 is also proof positive of tyranny of the majority, something that our founders tried to prevent from happening.Rights cannot, and should not, be taken away from people under any circumstance. Taking away rights only leads to a grave precedent--today it is the right to marry who you wish, tomorrow it is the right to protest, or speak freely, or choose your own religion, or to habeus corpus, freedom from double trials and cruel and unusual punishments.If people decide gays cannot get married, whats to stop them from proclaiming that people cannot live beyond 60 years of age? And that is why we have courts (among various other reasons).

Yes, how long did it take for SCOTUS to override separate but equal? When was that established? Let's see, that would be Plessy vs. Ferguson, in 1896. Brown vs. BoEoT was in 1954. So that's what, 58 years?How long has the moral majority been trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade? That was decided in 1973, so we're talking 35 years and counting.Perhaps its because SCOTUS is a very conservative body twice-over. First, unlike the House, Presidency, or Senate, it does not change very rapidly overall. Second, the court is pretty evenly split, with a conservative bias, ideologically. That second bit makes it unlikely that it will take up DOMA, perhaps?Or maybe its because none of the challenges to DOMA had standing? You know, like the case about saying the pledge in school? The father did not have the necessary standing to bring suit in the first place according to whichever court blocked the last appeal.

"Equality means blacks and whites have the same thing, just segregated. Like schools. This is the opinion I hold on the matter. And, incidentally, my opinion on this matter seems to be supported by a majority, both in the popular vote and in the SCOTUS. You hold a different opinion, and without majority support. We can have differeing opinions, can't we? Why is yours so supremely moral and superior to mine? Why should the majority opinion be overthrown to grant you yours? And why would you even care so long as blacks are granted their equal rights? In my opinion, desegregation is not one of them."--a possible hootmon, or Fosdick who's illusory marriage caused little abner to marry daisy mae, in the 1950s before SCOTUS overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. BoEoT. It would be fair, I think, to state that the majority opinion in the south at this time was pro-segregation. I hope my re-wording makes it clear why your position is reprehensible.Do you see what's wrong with the tyranny of the majority? You do, of course, because you are willing to defend women's rights against a majority opinion. You're just a touch hypocritical, is all, and it's quite disgusting.Your argument is also fallacious. Argument of the majority, typically a creationist ploy (most people in the states think that the earth is less than 10k years old, so it must be true, for example), is not a valid support. A majority can be and often is wrong on issues. If the majority happens to be right, it would be an incidental matter, not a prime reason why something is true or right. Your argument depends upon the majority (in both society and SCOTUS) in order to support its properness. So quit using that fallacious reasoning if you want your opinion to hold any water. Find another method of support for your opinion.

Well, actually, the bill of rights does not apply solely to the federal level.That would be thanks to the 14th amendment. The states do not supercede the federal government. The states, for example, cannot write out freedom of speach. The states, for example, cannot abridge freedoms not mentioned in the constitution (the 9th amendment).Denying the right of marriage to homosexuals is denying a right not mentioned in the constitution. This depends, of course, on marriage being defined as a right. Unless you want to argue that men and women do not have the right to marry other men and women, then marriage can safely be defined as a right, and thusly fall under jurisdiction of the 9th amendment.

While I haven't read Roe v Wade, it would only make sense to me that the right to privacy would come straight out of the 9th amendment.One of the arguments for not having a bill of rights is that it could be contrued as constrictive. People would only have the rights written in the amendments. They knew they wouldn't be able to think of every single right imaginable.So what happened was essentially a compromise. They wrote down what they thought most important, and then left the door open with the 9th.The 14th amendment simply applies the bill of rights to states. Before then, the federal government could not restrict your rights, but state governments could. With the 14th, they could not.This may be due to slavery, in that slavery was deemed an issue for states to decide on (well, certain states thought that). So how do you prevent states from enslaving people? By applying federal limitaions on government power to take away rights to the state level.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, The civil war ended a little over 150 years ago. Get over it. The south was not within its rights to secede from the union.And it is hardly a war of northern agression, but then, I can easily see how a virginian who lives where most of the fighting in the civil war took place would think of it as such. The south was actually the first agressor. It seceded from the union, not the other way around, and it attacked the union, not the other way around.The 14th amendment is a valid amendment. It, as of 2003, has been ratified by every state in the union. When it was first amended to the constitution in 1868, 28 states had ratified it, and of those, only Tennesse, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisianna, and South Carolina of the former CSA had ratified it. So just slighty over half of the former CSA were required to ratify the amendment.
{abe: actually, only two states from the CSA would be required to pass the amendment. 37-11=26. Still, this is all rather academic as every state has now ratified the amendment, including california) /abe}Alabama and Georgia ratified it about two weeks after the amendment was part of the constitution.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

I find this hard to believe.
Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State
The government's website says that the proposition eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry. The only valid and recognized marriage within California is that between one man and one woman.Here's the text: Hm, yes, that's absolutely not discriminatory, right? Bull shit. The state government admits that the amendment eliminates a right for a group of people. How is eliminating a right not discriminatory?

And if you dig into the issue, you will find that this claim is quite misleading.
2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia
Nate Silver, as the wiki mentions, has a great piece debunking this. You can read it here:
Page not found – FiveThirtyEightIt's not race. It's age. And older voters turnout in greater force than younger voters.So please, as you told FO, I tell you: