California Proposition 8

[Moochie]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. And living in a democracy means that eventually a majority of folks will understand that which they don't now.


M.

 

[rwguinn]

As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.

Under US Constitutional law, as I understand it, "The Will of the People" is valid ONLY when it does not infringe on the RIGHTS of the minority.
Republicans tend to forget this.
Unfortunately, Democrats tend to Ignore it...

 

[jp834618]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

You could attack a person for being ignorant or just for being a jerk and you might have a point. But when you attack someone for their sexual orientation, they really feel that because that's how they were born and they can't change it. It's as rational as being a racist. Congratulations.

 

[Meadmaker]

Exactly. Children are told, through many channels, but especially religious ones, that incest and homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, perverse ....

I think psychologists, too, might frown on sexual relationships between parents and children.

In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up. They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership"...

Sounds good, but why stop there? Why have any term at all? Why is the state interested in the whole subject?

 

[Alt+F4]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

Slippery slope argument. This hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage has been legalized.

 

[Alt+F4]

When Obama was born, about 30 States still had laws against people of different races getting married.

Yup, and that's what bugs the crap out of me about Obama. Right from the start he's saying that he is allowed to have a certain right (in this case marriage) and he has no problem dening this right to others. So much for change.

 

[Pookster]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?

There are no absolute rights. The Courts have long said there must be a legitimate compelling interest on the part of the Government to deny a fundamental human right. In Perez ..

"there can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. ... the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice ..."

In Perez, the Court points out that it doesn't say anyone can marry anyone else, but that the starting point is that one can choose who to marry, and that choice cannot be limited by the State unless there is a legitimate State reason to do so. The State can preclude incestuous marriages and establish a minimum age for effective consent because such limitations do further an important social objective by reasonable means without discriminating based on arbitrary classifications.

American society has decided that "marriage" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman. i dont see anything wrong with that.

I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as there is a legitimate State reason. What is it, sir?

 

[Pookster]

Yup, and that's what bugs the crap out of me about Obama. Right from the start he's saying that he is allowed to have a certain right (in this case marriage) and he has no problem dening this right to others. So much for change.

I'm not certain how to take Obama's position. He says he's opposed to it personally. But, is he for the Government prohibiting it? There are examples I can come up with where I personally wouldn't approve of something, but recognize others rights to do that very thing (abortion, for example).

 

[Pookster]

Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?

I missed this before. The Courts have long recognized marriage as a fundamental human right. An example in Meyers v Nebraska ...

“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

From Skinner v. Oklahoma ...

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

 

[Cavemonster]

In California, there have been multiple games shows where the prize was marriage between two relative strangers.

Doesn't that seem like a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Where were the Christians up in arms about that?

 

[Mitchell314]

In California, there have been multiple games shows where the prize was marriage between two relative strangers.

Doesn't that seem like a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Where were the Christians up in arms about that?

Not as big eww gut reaction?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as there is a legitimate State reason. What is it, sir?

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place. Why bother recognizing or providing incentives* for anyone to become involved in any sort of sexual relationship with anyone else?

Once you answer that question, you might be in a position to ask whether restricting that right to exactly two unrelated, adult, individuals of opposite sex furthers that cause. Once you know why you are doing this in the first place, you might decide that marriage needs fewer, or greater, restrictions on eligibility.

For example, protecting the right of an adult to engage in any sort of sexual relationship with any other consenting adult is, in my opinion, a legitimate state concern. However, marriage does not advance that concern in any way. Indeed, it restricts that concern. So if that were the only concern being addressed by marriage laws, the obvious solution would be to abolish marriage as a state institution.

===============
*Not to mention placing restrictions on the behavior of those who enter such a relationship, but that is so obvious that it need not be said.

 

[Darat]

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place.

...snip...

Two points, the first may seem to be just a niggle with your wording but I think is an important point, currently the state does not recognise marriage, the state defines what marriage is.

The second point is that we are not starting from a neutral position. Marriage, as defined by the state, already exists so the argument is one of whether the definition of marriage is discriminatory is not.

 

[Meadmaker]

Two points, the first may seem to be just a niggle with your wording but I think is an important point, currently the state does not recognise marriage, the state defines what marriage is.

I don't think it's just a niggle. I think you are absolutely right.

The second point is that we are not starting from a neutral position. Marriage, as defined by the state, already exists so the argument is one of whether the definition of marriage is discriminatory is not.

Clearly, it is discriminatory. Of that there can be no doubt. Anyone who says it is not has never looked up "discriminate" in a dictionary.

The question, in my mind, is whether or not that discrimination serves a legitimate purpose, and I think that is what Pookster asked as well. In my humble opinion, a precursor question to that is whether having marriage as a state institution serves a purpose. Does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating, recognising, or rewarding sexual relationships among adults? Does the state have a legitimate interest in facilitating or restricting property sharing among people engaged in long term relationships that are presumed to involve sexual activity? If so, what is that legitimate interest?

Once you answer that question, you can then move on to the question of whether or not that interest is furthered, or impeded, by discriminating among various sorts of people when defining who can enter that relationship.

I seriously doubt that most voters in California or Arizona, or any of several other states who had previously enacted similar initiatives, actually explicitly considered such weighty philosophical interests before going to the polls. However, I think they are worth considering, and consideration of such issues might grant insight into why people voted as they did, even if the voters themselves did not or could not express their reasons in those terms.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The State can preclude incestuous marriages and establish a minimum age for effective consent because such limitations do further an important social objective by reasonable means without discriminating based on arbitrary classifications.

What "important social objective" is that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

From Skinner v. Oklahoma ...

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Except the "basic civil right of man" in this case was the right to procreate. The quote doesn't say that marriage is a right, just "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" which would likely be because in 1946 the idea of unwed couples having children was unthinkable. Today this is not so.

Having said that, try looking up the UN Universal Human Rights Article 16.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Someone have Wolfman tell him about the Mosou.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm very impressed by how cleverly you manage to consistently avoid adressing the issue of intersexed individuals.

You know he is never going to present definitions, and address that determineing someones sex can be a very complicated issue.

Up to and includeing determining what % of someone is male(XY) vs female(XX) in the case of chimera.

 

[ponderingturtle]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?

I don't care about if someone is related to someone else, I think a stepfather or adoptive father is just as wrong as a blood relative, but the law does not always think so.

I just don't see why it is the laws job to prevent people from getting into unhealthy relationships. The whole genetic argument is a joke, as no one is seriously promoting laws that would ban unrelated people with known genetic incompatabilities from marrying.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well to be fair, Marriage as we know it was a religious thing before it was a Sate thing.

And was a state thing before it was a religious thing.

Marriage might be a cultural universal but I have not seen any evidence that it is a religious universal.