Shameful Bigotry Amendment Passes In Florida

[bpesta22]

didn't read all this so maybe missed it, but are some confusing the declaration of independence with the constitution. The former uses the word "men", the constitution though is completely gender neutral.

 

[1337m4n]

And if you think making distinctions on the basis of gender is the same as making distinctions on the basis of race, ask yourself if you seriously think American society wants genderless public restrooms.

Not all gender-based distinctions are equal. Seperating public restrooms by gender is one thing. Discriminating for employment, for instance, is quite another. Each instance of gender discrimination needs to be judged on its own merits and I couldn't for the life of me think of a single good reason to prevent people from marrying whatever gender they want.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Marriage isn't actually a right. It's a set of privileges, many of which can be replicated without marriage. Child custody rights could be extended without marriage very easily. The only ones not likely to be extended are tax advantages, and that is precisely an issue of fairness. Fairness is no small thing, and from a policy perspective it should matter quite a bit. But constitutionally, you're still not getting it, which is why you keep talking about discrimination against gays rather than discrimination on the basis of gender.

The precedent set by Loving v. Virginia would disagree with you as it affirmed that marriage is a right and that majority opinion or tradition cannot be used to eliminate equal protection under the law. Conservatives may deny this fact but I will make a wager with any individual right now for any sum of money that a future court case which will overturn the bans on gay marriage will cite Loving v. Virginia as a precedent. The fact remains is that by using majority opinion, legislation, and the courts to eliminate the ability of gays to marry greatly exceeds the US government’s constitutional limits.

And you’re ineptly deluded if you believe the issue has to do with gender and not sexuality.

The right for a man to enter certain restrooms is denied on the basis that the majority doesn't like it.

*sigh* Any and all laws must be publicly justified. If all fair-minded people cannot agree on a law without resorting to religious reasons, bigotry, or simple irrational arguments than a law cannot rationally be a law, it may sit in the books for awhile but I doubt it will see much enforcement or it may also be overturned as unconstitutional. There is no rational reason for why a man cannot marry a man ergo opposition to extending those rights to homosexual marriages is unreasonable. This is hardly the same as denying a man the right to enter a woman’s bathroom.

 

[1337m4n]

Marriage is about encouraging behavior that the state has an interest in (namely, the creation of stable families for the reproduction of future citizens). So the state absolutely has an interest in sex in regards to marriage. I can already anticipate your objections (what about infertile couples, etc), but they are irrelevant: the state is not obligated to pursue its interests in an optimal manner.

The bolded part seems like a cheap cop-out. Gender has no effect on the stated goal since homosexual couples are still capable of adopting, donating sperm, or serving as surrogate mothers. So the restriction seems to be purely arbitrary, and it would make just as much sense to create a restriction saying that two readheaded people are not allowed to marry (since they still technically still have the "equal right" to marry non-readheaded people, and since it doesn't need to move towards the goal of creating stable families since the state doesn't need to pursue that goal optimally).

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you overall point, I'm just saying it seems like a really cheesy technicality, like the kind you'd use to win a football game without technically "cheating"; an abuse of the letter-of-the-law to loophole your way through the spirit-of-the-law.

 

[Ziggurat]

The bolded part seems like a cheap cop-out.

Perhaps you don't understand what exactly I'm trying to argue. I'm not arguing that this is good policy, I'm arguing that it's constitutional. And on the question of constitutionality, technicalities (even if they're only technicalities) absolutely matter. And if it's constitutional but bad policy, the remedy is through the legislature, not through the courts. But I think too many people have become too attached to solving policy problems through the courts rather than through the legislature, and in the long run it's not a very effective strategy. As evidenced by the passage of prop 8.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you’re ineptly deluded if you believe the issue has to do with gender and not sexuality.

The fact that the ban on gay marriages may be motivated by opinions towards homosexuality is irrelevant. These marriage laws are silent on the issue of sexuality, and only refer to gender. This may be a technicality, but that's what laws are.

There is no rational reason for why a man cannot marry a man ergo opposition to extending those rights to homosexual marriages is unreasonable.

There is no requirement that laws be reasonable. You're "adeptly deluded" if you thought otherwise.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The fact that the ban on gay marriages may be motivated by opinions towards homosexuality is irrelevant. These marriage laws are silent on the issue of sexuality, and only refer to gender. This may be a technicality, but that's what laws are.

It's a cheap play at semantics as far as I'm concerned. The issue is one man marrying another or a woman marrying a woman, the fact that the law only mentions the gender and not the sexuality is irrelevant to the fact that the law is designed to discriminate against persons of certain sexuality.

There is no requirement that laws be reasonable. You're "adeptly deluded" if you thought otherwise.

Then as a responsible citizen I am not obliged to follow such a law and will do everything in my power to be rid of it. See: civil disobedience.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a cheap play at semantics as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, well, that's the law for you. Sometimes it's cheap, sometimes it's expensive, but it's pretty much always just semantics.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Yeah, well, that's the law for you. Sometimes it's cheap, sometimes it's expensive, but it's pretty much always just semantics.

Regardless of the wording do you deny that the law is designed to discriminate against against gays and lesbians?

 

[epeos76]

*sigh* Any and all laws must be publicly justified. If all fair-minded people cannot agree on a law without resorting to religious reasons, bigotry, or simple irrational arguments than a law cannot rationally be a law, it may sit in the books for awhile but I doubt it will see much enforcement or it may also be overturned as unconstitutional. There is no rational reason for why a man cannot marry a man ergo opposition to extending those rights to homosexual marriages is unreasonable. This is hardly the same as denying a man the right to enter a woman’s bathroom.

You are quite an optimist.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You are quite an optimist.

Optimist? No. Not hardly. I'm speaking of what would be the ideal way of making laws in my view.

 

[Galileo]

My state has passed ballot amendment 2 which reads:



Never mind that there's already a state statute against it, and Florida adopted the DOMA, we had to go for this bigotry as well. As I told the guy violating the "No campaigning past this line" marker before I got him thrown out who was shouting "Protect our families" gay marriages don't harm anyone's family.

Right now, I have to go to work. Afterward, I'll need a strong drink.

ETA: Actually, this probably belongs in the main politics forum.

The State should not define marriage. People get married by churches, not by bureaucrats.

 

[Dragoonster]

But I think too many people have become too attached to solving policy problems through the courts rather than through the legislature, and in the long run it's not a very effective strategy. As evidenced by the passage of prop 8.

Yes, people do get attached to courts solving silly things like civil rights when the majority public decides to discriminate against minorities. Darn that Brown v. Board of Education!

The evidence of prop 8 is not clear either. First, it's currently being challenged Constitutionally, and the outcome of those suits isn't a gimmee. Second, the court that struck down the previous law had to be superseded this time by making it an actual Amendment; and that court was made up of a majority of conservative justices. This isn't a case of "activist judges" trying to write law. They're trying to interpret law. Prop 22 was writing law, which they found unlawful; the fate of prop 8 (more public writing of law) has yet to be determined.

This type of stepping-up-the-ladder isn't unusual of course. The courts are doing their job, as is the legislature and public. Next step would be US jurisdiction, unless a suit succeeds in rendering the amendment contrary to the CA constitution.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, people do get attached to courts solving silly things like civil rights when the majority public decides to discriminate against minorities. Darn that Brown v. Board of Education!

The federal courts forced a majority opinion (end racial segregation) on a minority group (southern states where segregation persisted). I agree with the opinion of the court in that case, but don't kid yourself about why it worked so successfully.

 

[Ziggurat]

Regardless of the wording do you deny that the law is designed to discriminate against against gays and lesbians?

Sure. What's your point? That the law is distasteful? Never said otherwise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would have said that it depends on if the US Ratified the Articles, but apparently even if they did it wouldn't matter because the US Govt refuses to give US Citizens more rights than they have already decided you should have, even if they ratify a human rights treaty that should indeed grant you more. I guess you really are the Land of the Free.....

Of course I could ask what legal standing does the US Supreme Court have in New South Wales?

None. but pointing out that some person holds something to be a right and that it is legally a right are two different things.

Just because someone holds that all people have a right to free pudding does not actualy make pudding free.

 

[bpesta22]

Could any lawyers comment on strict scrutiny versus rational basis as tests for whether gay marriage bans are constitutional? My understanding is that since sexual preference is not immutable, the issue would fall under an RB test which would make it very hard for the courts to toss Prop 8.

 

[Gazpacho]

I would prefer that lawyers advocating for marriage would steer clear of factual "immutability" questions and use some other approach where that doesn't matter. I can see some bad consequences coming from a case argued on that basis, even if it is "won."

 

[PhantomWolf]

None. but pointing out that some person holds something to be a right and that it is legally a right are two different things.

Just because someone holds that all people have a right to free pudding does not actualy make pudding free.

I'd suggest that the UN has slightly more authority than some radom bloke of the street, no?

 

[Brendy]

The State should not define marriage. People get married by churches, not by bureaucrats.

Not everyone get married in churches. You can be married by the State too.