I am outraged, saddened, and SURPRISED that California voters voted to ban same sex marriage.
This was a pre-existing right, that they voted to have repealed, its not like it was a vote for the 1st time to have it, and people voted no, they voted to take this right away. I feel that's a step in the wrong direction for civil rights. No matter how you feel about marriage, its obvious that this is discrimination. And on the eve of President Elect Obama's win! When sooo many Americans were feeling soo much pride in our country. Pride that America IS more progressive than we and a lot of the world want to give us credit for. Pride that we may be moving to a more tolerant, less bullying state of mind. This happens. A pooping on others rights. No I don't think specific religions or religious leaders should be MADE to perform same sex marriages if they don't agree with it, but there are plenty that would preform that ceremony. it should be left up to each particular church to decide, not the government!! the spiritual side of marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government. Atheist, multiple divorcees, drug dealers, hustlers, lawyers are all allowed to get married, but not gays??? Only the legal, bidding, i get half of what's yours if we divorce, prenuptial agreement part should have anything to do with government!! Shame on you CA!! Shame!
Pooping on Gay's Rights: SHAME ON YOU CALIFORNIA!!!
By mai - Posted on November 7th, 2008
Tagged: civil rights
• Personal freedom
That is a shame and I don't understand it because the decision keeps getting turned over. One minute yes next minute no, yes, no, yes, no. It is annoying. Just say yes and leave it.
Come to the darkside....we have cookies ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/50086-%E2%80%9Ctaxi-darkside%E2%80%9D-u...
FWIW, California is pretty consistent about this issue. California has had a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman since 1977. Then, Californians banned gay marriage in 2000 when gay activists threatened to force the issue. Gay activists sued successfully to get gay marriages recognized in May of this year, and immediately, California voters responded yet again with a Constitutional ban.
As far as it being a civil rights issue, it isn’t. Marriage is certainly not a universal right. It is completely dependent on each individual nation’s idea of morality and their sensibilities. In the US, we ban family members from marrying, we ban polygamy, we ban selectively based on age, and so on. Californians certainly should have a say against things that affect their sensibilities and moral values.
Marriage is certainly not a universal right. It is completely dependent on each individual nation’s idea of morality and their sensibilities.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "universal right," but according to the Supreme Court of the United States, the freedom to marry is a "basic civil right."
In the US, we ban family members from marrying, we ban polygamy, we ban selectively based on age, and so on.
Sure, we limit marriage. However, the Constituion does not permit us to limit a basic civil right based on arbitrary or invidious categories. Basic civil rights may only be limited in manners that are free from invidious categorizations, and even then the State must demonstrate a compelling interest when doing so. Laws passed specifically to keep gay people from getting married don't pass constitutional muster, and are therefore doomed to be overturned, sooner or later, in our nation's Courts.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You seem completely oblivious to the fact that laws are made by ordinary citizens and ruled upon by people who are affected by the exact same sensibilities as ordinary citizens. You make it seem as though laws are set in stone and can only be ruled upon in one “correct” way. There is no such correct way. Relying upon decisions in the most liberal of courts in the East and West Coasts really isn’t going to help you when the next SCOTUS nominees are selected by a President-elect who specifically said he does not support gay marriage.
Laws are certainly created and enforced based on completely arbitrary reasons. Otherwise, gay activists would feel free to contest laws against what they view as “basic civil rights” anytime they want on a national level. If gay activists try to bring a gay marriage issue to the SCOTUS with its current makeup, they will lose. This is why these activists don’t dare try to bring the issue up to a national level until they see the makeup of the SCOTUS change. You could read the numerous articles discussing the situation written by prominent gay activists discussing the situation in California and elsewhere. Basically, all but the most militant of activists know this is not yet the time to contest the issue nationally.
Most know that laws are meaningless until they are enforced or denied by the “right makeup” of people. Why don’t you?
You say that the Constitution does not allow anyone to limit a right based on invidious categories, but it’s completely dependent on the people viewing the case to decide without a doubt that something is invidious. And I, for one, cannot see one difference between banning gay marriage and all of the other arbitrary bans we have enacted. We deny committed people from marrying each other for all sorts of reasons. It’s simply a matter of adding gay couples to the list of banned marriages.
You seem completely oblivious to the fact that laws are made by ordinary citizens and ruled upon by people who are affected by the exact same sensibilities as ordinary citizens.
Not at all. Citizens make laws all the time, either by direct action or through their legislatures. However, the very reason we have Constitutions at both the State and Federal levels is so that those laws are held to a standard of fairness upon which our entire system of government is based. One of the primary functions of our Judiciary is to evaluate the laws made by "ordinary citizens" and to strike down those laws if they violate the principles of our Constitutions.
You make it seem as though laws are set in stone and can only be ruled upon in one “correct” way. There is no such correct way.
That's not exactly true. As a country, we have invested the authority to decide what is or is not the "correct way" to interpret our laws in our system of Courts. The laws aren't set in stone, but those laws are required to abide by some very basic rules which are, of course, spelled out in our respective Constiutions.
Relying upon decisions in the most liberal of courts in the East and West Coasts really isn’t going to help you when the next SCOTUS nominees are selected by a President-elect who specifically said he does not support gay marriage.
I'm pretty well versed in Mr. Obama's policy stances, thank you very much, and I'm willing to take my chances with whomever he may appoint to the SCOTUS should the opportunity arise. And, I should point out that even on the West and East Coast, the vast majority of Judges are actually conservatives. But what many neo-conservatives tend to forget is that judicial conservatives tend to be very protective of our Constitutions.
Laws are certainly created and enforced based on completely arbitrary reasons.
I would suggest that this opinion comes from a fundamental lack of understanding regarding how our system of jurisprudence actually works. Sure, the people can pass an arbitrary law. But when they do, the Courts have the duty (and the authority) to strike down those laws.
Otherwise, gay activists would feel free to contest laws against what they view as “basic civil rights” anytime they want on a national level. If gay activists try to bring a gay marriage issue to the SCOTUS with its current makeup, they will lose.
What makes you think that? On the one hand, I don't think you really understand how involved and time intensive it is to get a case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some cases (like In re: Marriage Cases) are reliant solely on State Constiututional arguments, and the SCOTUS doesn't have final jurisdiction over the rulings. In my lifetime, there have been several gay-related cases that made it all the way and which were decided in our favor...One, Inc. v. Olsen, Oncale v. Sundowner, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Wisconsin v. Mitchelli, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Only two, really, have gone against us...Bowers v. Hardwick (which was struck down in Lawrence) and B.S.A. v. Dale.
This is why these activists don’t dare try to bring the issue up to a national level until they see the makeup of the SCOTUS change.
Actually, there hasn't been a real change in the make-up of the Court in decades. Both Roberts and Alito replaced republican-appointed nominees (yes...Sandra Day O'Conner was a republican). The Court has sat seven republicans and two democrats for at least two decades. Only if McCain had won, would the basic make-up of the Court actually have been likely to change. The reason you don't see MORE cases taken to the Supreme Court is that by and large the cases that in most cases, the cases terminate at the State level. In many more, we reach a satisfactory ruling at the circuit level. In some cases, we even see decisions by our conservative detractors NOT to appeal pro-gay rulings in the federal courts in order to avoid the potential of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling. In those few that have gone all the way, the gay rights folks have won more often than not.
You could read the numerous articles discussing the situation written by prominent gay activists discussing the situation in California and elsewhere. Basically, all but the most militant of activists know this is not yet the time to contest the issue nationally.
I have read them, and I think you need to go back and read them a little more closely. What groups like Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campain are cautioning against is sending the wrong case up through the Courts. In order to get the kind of solid and specific ruling that we need to end this debate once and for all, we need a case that adequately encompasses our issues in a situation that clearly collides with the relevant constitutional provisions. Personally, I think that one of the three cases already filed against Prop. 8 offers an excellent 14th Amendment challenge.
Most know that laws are meaningless until they are enforced or denied by the “right makeup” of people. Why don’t you?
Let's just say that "most" people think they know a whole lot more about Constitutional Law than they really do. I'm not one of those people.
You say that the Constitution does not allow anyone to limit a right based on invidious categories, but it’s completely dependent on the people viewing the case to decide without a doubt that something is invidious.
Actually, there's a pretty significant body of case-law that governs what is or is not an invidious discrimination. The High Court in Romer ruled that laws which specifically target gay people for different treatment fail even under the less-stringent "rational purpose" test and are unconstiutional.
And I, for one, cannot see one difference between banning gay marriage and all of the other arbitrary bans we have enacted. We deny committed people from marrying each other for all sorts of reasons. It’s simply a matter of adding gay couples to the list of banned marriages.
The manner is which you made that statement is a perfect example of an invidious discrimination. You aren't stating a rational purpose for banning gay marriages. Instead, you are implying that gay people's marriages should be banned because they people involved are gay. We can only hope that whatever lawyers eventually argure the conservative view in the upcoming marriage cases will be as crass and undiscerning.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That's not exactly true. As a country, we have invested the authority to decide what is or is not the "correct way" to interpret our laws in our system of Courts. The laws aren't set in stone, but those laws are required to abide by some very basic rules which are, of course, spelled out in our respective Constiutions.
I think you have boundless faith in a court's impartiality. I do not. I think the courts can interpret the law anyway the courts see fit, without changing one word in the Constitution. A so-called liberal court can read the Constitution and say it includes gays, and a so-called conservative court can read the exact same words to bar gays.
So when I say there is no correct way to interpret law, it is the truth. It's not an opinion. Even our local district prosecutor knows how to work the system, pushing forward some cases only when he is assigned certain judges, and pleading out other cases when he is assigned other judges. Not one lawyer I've ever heard of relies on impartiality.
The manner is which you made that statement is a perfect example of an invidious discrimination. You aren't stating a rational purpose for banning gay marriages. Instead, you are implying that gay people's marriages should be banned because they people involved are gay.
Quite the contrary. I am not saying gay marriages should be banned. I don't think it's an issue for the courts to consider at all. Laws should not decide how one practices traditions. Yet, every day, I read of yet another law that gets passed to reinforce a cultural viewpoint.
I think you have boundless faith in a court's impartiality.
Let's just say that I have more faith in the impartiality of the Court that I do in the impartiality of the general electorate (which is kind of the whole point of having Courts, anyway).
I do not. I think the courts can interpret the law anyway the courts see fit, without changing one word in the Constitution. A so-called liberal court can read the Constitution and say it includes gays, and a so-called conservative court can read the exact same words to bar gays.
That's why State and Federal Supreme Courts have more than one judge that sit on their respective benches. The idea is that while you may occasionally find an issue about which a particular judge cannot rule impartially, but it is very unlikely that a majority of Justices will abandon all of their training and damage their reputation by ruling on the basis of personal emotion rather than the Law.
So when I say there is no correct way to interpret law, it is the truth. It's not an opinion. Even our local district prosecutor knows how to work the system, pushing forward some cases only when he is assigned certain judges, and pleading out other cases when he is assigned other judges. Not one lawyer I've ever heard of relies on impartiality.
What you opinion fails to consider is the fact that the Courts are granted authority by The People to decide what is or is not "correct way to interpret law." So, when a Court says, "this is the correct way to interpret law," that is an authoritative statement until such time as the Court (or a higher one) vacates that decision. YOU might have an opinion about a legal issue, but the standard by which the "correctness" of your opinion is judged is the decision of the Court. It is an inherent feature of our system of Government.
Quite the contrary. I am not saying gay marriages should be banned. I don't think it's an issue for the courts to consider at all. Laws should not decide how one practices traditions. Yet, every day, I read of yet another law that gets passed to reinforce a cultural viewpoint.
I think you are white-washing the situation when you suggest that marriage is only a tradition. It is not. There are many different "traditions" of marriage, and many of them are quite different from one another. But marriage also represents a HUGE collection of legal rights and privileges, and being denied access to it lays a substantial burden on families that cannot, for example, make legal arrangements to care for one another because they aren't technically, that can't list each other on insurance policies because they are technically married; that can't leave their property to their partners upon death because they aren't technically married. The "tradition" crap is irrelevant. We can already do all of the "traditional" stuff without anyone else's legal cooperation.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.