Same-Sex Marriages will not resume in California

Started by FreakyLocz14 August 28th, 2010 4:41 PM
  • 1694 views
  • 36 replies

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to stay federal Judge Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8 at least until early December. This means that they are allowing California's voter approved ban on same-sex marriage to resume until they can hear appeals to Judge Walker's radical ruling.

WARNING: tl;dr opinion below

Here I will defend Proposition 8 and insist that it should be upheld. This will not be done by saying that same-sex marriage is wrong or immoral, for I do not hold that view and do not have any objection to same-sex marriages taking place in California; please let that be clear. Rather, I will defend Proposition 8 on an argument based on voter's rights and asserting that law made by the people directly through the ballot box, is one of the highest forms of law and should overrule law made by judicial activism. For a nation and a state that claim to govern with the consent of the governed, what better form of law is there than law created directly by the governed?
Proposition 8’s passing was clearly a message sent by the People of the State of California to the judicial elite in Sacramento. The message was that the People will have the final say when it comes to the same-sex marriage issue, and the broader message that four judges will not overturn the decision of four million voters. The question often brought up by the opponents of Proposition 8 is if this means that I am proposing that a majority vote should be able to create any law, no matter how barbaric or civil rights infringing may be. The answer is no; but in order to protect the integrity of the democratic initiative process and protect the People’s ability to govern themselves directly in a reasonable manner, voter-approved law should be reviewed under the highest level of scrutiny. This would ensure that only voter-approved law that is so infringing on civil liberties that it shocks the conscious would be deemed unconstitutional, thereby allowing the People to enjoy the initiative process without the fear of judicial activism while reasonable limits can be placed on the initiative process.
The claim that same-sex couples are denied equal protection of the laws by Proposition 8 is also incorrect. California Family Code section 297.5 provides all of the state and local level rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples who reside in California as registered domestic partners. The assertion that registered domestic partnerships do not provide equal rights because they do not proved the federal level rights of marriage is also invalid because the federal level rights of marriage would still be denied to same-sex couples if they were allowed to marry under the Defense of Marriage Act; therefore, registered domestic partnerships do equate to marriage in all ways but the name of the union in California.
Those that hear me argue that registered domestic partnerships are a sufficient alternative to same-sex marriage tend to make the fallacious assertion that I must also support the Jim Crow laws of the South by tying my argument to the separate but equal doctrine. I will admit that I am not opposed to separate but equal in all circumstances, but the Jim Crow laws of the South do not even meet the separate but equal standard because separate public facilities provided to people of color under those laws were inherently unequal. The majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education even stated that the reason for their ruling was that segregated educational facilities were inherently unequal, thereby failing to meet the separate but equal standard defined in Plessy v. Ferguson. California’s registered domestic partnership law, on the other hand, does meet the separate but equal standard, and then some. For all legal purposes, couples in a registered domestic partnership in California are treated as married and they also enjoy additional rights that married couples do not enjoy, such as an easier avenue to terminate their union if they wish to.
Therefore, I believe the 9th Circuit should reverse and remand the District Court’s ruling.
Age 33
she/her
The surface of the sun
Seen October 8th, 2022
Posted August 26th, 2022
365 posts
12.8 Years
I respect your beliefs, but let me just say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional on base principle. It was drafted specifically to exclude a group of people from a right that is allowed simply for who they are. It is illegal for companies to not hire someone because they're gay, as it is discriminatory. Prop 8 is discriminatory as well; that is the main reason it was sent to the courts in the first place.

There's another law that, if it had been put to voters, would have remained. That is segregation in schools. Separate but equal, right? Same thing here. Sure, we'll separate marriage and these domestic partnerships. It's the same thing, right guys?

It's not. As proven when that was overturned, separate is NOT equal. Prop 8 is just another spin on that outdated ideal. In fact, one of the last ads from the No on 8 camp said as much.

I'm sure you only say it should remain because people voted for it, but this isn't something as simple and base as a measure to keep roads intact, or to keep schools funded. This is about rights granted to us by the constitution. You know, that thing that governs what we can and can't do? Yeah... Prop 8 ignores that blatantly, and that's why it could, and SHOULD be overturned.

All this means is that it will be headed to the Supreme Court, meaning that if it's overturned, the repercussions will affect the entire NATION instead of our little state here.

And yes, domestic partnerships do equal marriage in all but name, but some people want the term "married" to apply to them as well. We should be able to marry who we want to, not who a group of people deem us able to and have to settle for a term we may not like just because the person is the same sex as us.

tl;dr Voter's right is a right too, but when something is unconstitutional it's gonna head to the courts and possibly overturned. Even if that something was voted on by citizens.

Timbjerr

T-o-X-i-C

Age 36
Female
Texas
Seen May 30th, 2022
Posted January 28th, 2016
7,415 posts
19.7 Years
I respect your beliefs, but let me just say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional on base principle. It was drafted specifically to exclude a group of people from a right that is allowed simply for who they are. It is illegal for companies to not hire someone because they're gay, as it is discriminatory. Prop 8 is discriminatory as well; that is the main reason it was sent to the courts in the first place.
Kindly point out where in the American constitution where marriage is a protected right that the federal government should spend time to protect.

Sure it's discriminatory, but with a 50% divorce rate, marriage is a joke ot begin with. Why anyone would want to be associated with a falsely idyllic institution nowadays is beyond me.
Age 33
she/her
The surface of the sun
Seen October 8th, 2022
Posted August 26th, 2022
365 posts
12.8 Years
It's not the marriage part that the constitution protects, it's the right to not be discriminated upon. Prop 8 is discriminatory, and that is why it is unconstitutional. No law shall discriminate upon any person for their race, sex, or anything else that might set them apart from others.

And so what if some people want to be married. Is it really our place to say no?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
It's not the marriage part that the constitution protects, it's the right to not be discriminated upon. Prop 8 is discriminatory, and that is why it is unconstitutional. No law shall discriminate upon any person for their race, sex, or anything else that might set them apart from others.

And so what if some people want to be married. Is it really our place to say no?
But you failed to explain how Prop 8 is discriminatory. There are plenty of other groups that are excluded from marriage other than homosexual people. And this does not ban homosexual people from marrying, a homosexual is free to marry any person of the opposite sex they wish and no one will stop them. Also, marriage is not a right, it's a privelege that states extend to heterosexual couples to advance the state's interests.
Age 30
Male
Not Okazaki, Japan
Seen October 18th, 2010
Posted October 15th, 2010
1,101 posts
12.8 Years
Freaky, you have no idea what you're talking about. The only other groups barred from marriage are minors, and even minors can get married (I think the minimum age ranges from 14-17 among states) with parental consent.

Find one group barred from marriage besides gay people. One. Don't just say there is one. Prove it.

----

Hey, y'all! Yes, you. Everyone who voted for Proposition 8 in California, and everyone who's voted for similar measures in Arizona or elsewhere, and don't forget the people support it, the stay, and want to reverse the unconstitutional ruling. Come on down. Have a seat. Have a beer. I'd like just a moment of your time; I promise I'll go quickly, and I won't swear. Everybody with me?

It isn't every day you get a golden opportunity to hurt thousands of people who never did a thing to you, in exchange for zero benefit to yourself or to society. You sure showed those people who were just looking to share their lives with the person they love, didn't you? Awesome work, and I hate to be a party pooper at this, your great moment of triumph over the homosexuals. But today, of all days, it seems necessary to remind you of one thing that, I suspect, you already know deep down.

You're going to lose.

You do recognize that, right? I mean, 150 years ago, your philosophical forebears kept black men as slaves. A hundred years ago, your philosophical forebears outlawed marriage between a white woman and a black man. People like you denied blacks the vote, denied women the vote, tacitly allowed marital rape, segregated the schools, and burned down stores with Jewish owners. And recently, a man that people like you once enslaved, the product of a union that people like you once forbade, was elected President of the United States of America in part by citizens that people like you once disenfranchised. The slaveowners, the segregationists, the Klan, the rest of it, all of them are gone or marginalized, sad jokes, and the only thing separating you from them is just a little more time. A little.

And you do know it. I can see it in your panicky faces. You managed to get a cheap amendment passed in 2008, and now it's being appeal, a stopgap against a tide you can't stem, but you know and I know that amendments get repealed. Laws get changed. Oh, you may still have a decade, give or take, to put your pitiful boot down on a group that still distresses enough of your peers to make it unprotected.
But within your lifetime, it's going to happen. Gay men, and gay women, will be married. Not engaged in a "civil union," but married. To each other! They'll share their names, homes, and lives; they'll have the sex you can't bear to think about, in the context of a legally recognized relationship. Then, you know what they'll do? They'll adopt and raise children. They'll join the PTA at your grandkids' school. And you - as marginalized as the "separate-but-equal" shlubs became after the 60's - you'll see it happen. And you'll sit muttering into your bib about how things used to be, and members of a generation who never knew anything but equal marriage rights for all will nod politely and move away, pausing maybe to wipe the creamed corn off your chin.

It's coming, and we all know it. We know it because the natural direction of this society has always been toward more freedom, more rationality, more common decency. We move in pathetically small increments sometimes, mostly because of people like you, but we keep on moving and we're going to move right on past your outmoded mind. And there is nothing - nothing - that you can do about it.

---

The stay is not a bigoted act however. It is the most logical thing to do. Although I wish it were not in affect, it's better to just put a stay on the ruling then to allow thousands of couples to get married then have that marriage ripped to shreds in the case the ruling is reversed.
Are you gay?
Are you bisexual?
Are you transgendered?
Are you an ally?

Are you looking for a friend?
Maybe some advice?
Or maybe just a place to feel normal?

Go to EmptyClosets.

Starstruck★ :Pair
Shinies :Important Links
Age 33
she/her
The surface of the sun
Seen October 8th, 2022
Posted August 26th, 2022
365 posts
12.8 Years
Have I friended you yet? If not, I'm going to. Right now.

You're awesome, and I agree with that post 100%.

Also, Freaky, I explained perfectly well how it was discriminatory. You just chose to ignore it.

When something prohibits one group of people from doing something, being something, or anything that another group can do, that something is discriminating against them. Anyone can get married; Prop 8 prohibits gay people from doing so. Thus it's what?
Age 30
Male
Not Okazaki, Japan
Seen October 18th, 2010
Posted October 15th, 2010
1,101 posts
12.8 Years
Have I friended you yet? If not, I'm going to. Right now.

You're awesome, and I agree with that post 100%.

Also, Freaky, I explained perfectly well how it was discriminatory. You just chose to ignore it.

When something prohibits one group of people from doing something, being something, or anything that another group can do, that something is discriminating against them. Anyone can get married; Prop 8 prohibits gay people from doing so. Thus it's what?
Yes. And simply because it's not a "right" (that's a very broad term, and often is chucked up to pure opinion) does not make it so nothing is discriminatory.

It's not labled anywhere even today that riding a public transportation vehicle is a right. However, if you prohibit someone of a different race, religion, or sex from riding said vehicle, it is against the law, because that is discriminatory.

The definition of discriminatory is not the exclusion of one group of people from a "right" , but it is the exclusion of one group of people from any given situation.

Whether or not marriage is a right is completely irrelevant.

You know what is relevant? The rights that marriage provides, and yes, under US law all the benefits of marriage are labeled as rights. There are over 1000 of these rights that LGBT couples do not receive in a domestic partnership, civil union, or whatever you want to call it. That is the issue. Not whether or not marriage is a right.
Are you gay?
Are you bisexual?
Are you transgendered?
Are you an ally?

Are you looking for a friend?
Maybe some advice?
Or maybe just a place to feel normal?

Go to EmptyClosets.

Starstruck★ :Pair
Shinies :Important Links
Age 33
she/her
The surface of the sun
Seen October 8th, 2022
Posted August 26th, 2022
365 posts
12.8 Years
You know what I believe?
I believe that the State/Federal government shouldn't be involved with marriages in the first place, period.
Exactly.

There is a little thing called Separation of Church and State. This means, in part, that no religion can dictate any laws.

Prop 8 was funded by, and I think written by, a bunch of religious folk because IT WAS BAD! OOHH!!

If discrimination doesn't work for you, Freaky, how about breaking that old thing?
Seen January 4th, 2013
Posted October 21st, 2011
1,804 posts
13.8 Years
Kindly point out where in the American constitution where marriage is a protected right that the federal government should spend time to protect.

Sure it's discriminatory, but with a 50% divorce rate, marriage is a joke ot begin with. Why anyone would want to be associated with a falsely idyllic institution nowadays is beyond me.
i see where you're coming from and i agree to an extent, but to disallow couples of the same sex who are truly in love to sign a contract that would provide them a plethora of benefits when needed is completely beyond me. here's an example: a man's partner has an accident and is put under intensive care. all they have is each other, but he can't visit his partner because they aren't married. a tragic and unfair example among many more if you research the legal benefits of marriage.

this whole issue is just astounding to me; having to put people's rights up to a vote, and the fact that every time a fair proposition is raised there is an overwhelming majority vote against it. really shows how the ignorant outweigh the intelligent.

Guillermo

i own a rabbit heh

Age 28
Australia
Seen April 11th, 2015
Posted May 18th, 2014
6,794 posts
14.9 Years
The problem you've got is that most religions forbid gay marriage, and the church would not hesitate to uprise against the Government if they allowed it.
credittoDukey
one life, one chance


| | le deux | | so-so-soulful

NarutoActor

The rocks cry out to me

Age 29
Female
Brooklyn/Marlboro
Seen April 2nd, 2016
Posted March 22nd, 2016
1,974 posts
14.4 Years
Exactly.

There is a little thing called Separation of Church and State. This means, in part, that no religion can dictate any laws.

Prop 8 was funded by, and I think written by, a bunch of religious folk because IT WAS BAD! OOHH!!

If discrimination doesn't work for you, Freaky, how about breaking that old thing?
*Shakes head :c

The separation of church and state was created so the STATE can't put laws on the church; not the other way around. America was founded on Jewdao christian beliefs.

If you think everything created by religious folks is bad then there are alot of things that you think are bad; America being one of them, or are you just a progressive, and want to see the destruction of the constitution?
~There are those people who understand hex, F the rest

Jolene

Your huckleberry friend

Age 27
Female
Seen September 25th, 2012
Posted September 25th, 2012
1,287 posts
13.8 Years
*Shakes head :c

The separation of church and state was created so the STATE can't put laws on the church; not the other way around. America was founded on Jewdao christian beliefs.

If you think everything created by religious folks is bad then there are alot of things that you think are bad; America being one of them, or are you just a progressive, and want to see the destruction of the constitution?
America was not supposed to be a Christian country as you can see if you read this. That is just something the conservatives have tricked you into believing. And even if the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, they should just change it now because religion is pointless and irrelevant in modern society in my opinion.

What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Joliet is the sun!
Age 30
Male
Not Okazaki, Japan
Seen October 18th, 2010
Posted October 15th, 2010
1,101 posts
12.8 Years
The problem you've got is that most religions forbid gay marriage, and the church would not hesitate to uprise against the Government if they allowed it.
Most, not all. Any gay marriage ban is religion based, and in this country, it is Christian based. Although I completely respect their views, I have to politely disagree with them. When the DOMA was passed, it's wording strongly supported Christian morals.

I know when Proposition 8 passed, the wording also supported Christian morals, as well as the gay marriage ban in my state (Ohio.)

Here is the very first sentence of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

However, that's exactly what they did. Everyone knows this, however, there is a common loophole that makes it so laws based on a religion can be passed, as long as it represents multiple religions. But it doesn't represent all.

This brings into separation of Church and State into the issue. Why is the state mandating religious laws? Since when when did the United States become a theocracy?

Those are the issues.

Also, I highly doubt people would rise up against a nation if it was passed. Look at Iowa, although a state, the people were not in favor (not even close to majority) of gay marriage. Now that the courts mandate the practice, people stopped arguing about it there for the most part except the most extreme conservatives because most people realized that the world won't end.

That was the same case in Massechusetts, Argentina, and Spain. Those are just to name a few.

By the way, Argentina and Spain are mostly Catholic.
Are you gay?
Are you bisexual?
Are you transgendered?
Are you an ally?

Are you looking for a friend?
Maybe some advice?
Or maybe just a place to feel normal?

Go to EmptyClosets.

Starstruck★ :Pair
Shinies :Important Links
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
*Shakes head :c

The separation of church and state was created so the STATE can't put laws on the church; not the other way around. America was founded on Jewdao christian beliefs.

If you think everything created by religious folks is bad then there are alot of things that you think are bad; America being one of them, or are you just a progressive, and want to see the destruction of the constitution?
ugh, no, and no. The Seperation of Church and State was so that any Church can't put enough influence on the government to make the Freedom of Religion right unable to be done. Unless you want a theocracy.

If you think the country should be based and only based on the ideals of Christians, then you're ignoring other's right to Freedom of Religion. If gay marriage is not allowed, you're abiding by a rule given by the Church, making it unconstitutional because its favoring one religion over the others.

Logically from a legal standpoint, this whole argument is pointless when basing that argument. Try another.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Freaky, you have no idea what you're talking about. The only other groups barred from marriage are minors, and even minors can get married (I think the minimum age ranges from 14-17 among states) with parental consent.

Find one group barred from marriage besides gay people. One. Don't just say there is one. Prove it.
Have I friended you yet? If not, I'm going to. Right now.

You're awesome, and I agree with that post 100%.

Also, Freaky, I explained perfectly well how it was discriminatory. You just chose to ignore it.

When something prohibits one group of people from doing something, being something, or anything that another group can do, that something is discriminating against them. Anyone can get married; Prop 8 prohibits gay people from doing so. Thus it's what?
Groups other than children barred from marriage include polygamists and people who believe in human-animal relationships.

Our side won't lose that easily. If you know the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, you would know that its dominated by conservatives.

Also same-sex marriage ban =/= religion. No where in the text of Proposition 8 is religion mentioned.

People like you denied blacks the vote, denied women the vote, tacitly allowed marital rape, segregated the schools, and burned down stores with Jewish owners. And recently, a man that people like you once enslaved, the product of a union that people like you once forbade, was elected President of the United States of America in part by citizens that people like you once disenfranchised. The slaveowners, the segregationists, the Klan, the rest of it, all of them are gone or marginalized, sad jokes, and the only thing separating you from them is just a little more time. A little.
And people like me did not deny blacks the vote. People like me freed the slaves and led the way in the black civil rights movement. Who were the KKK? Oh, that's right, Southern Democrats.

NarutoActor

The rocks cry out to me

Age 29
Female
Brooklyn/Marlboro
Seen April 2nd, 2016
Posted March 22nd, 2016
1,974 posts
14.4 Years
ugh, no, and no. The Seperation of Church and State was so that any Church can't put enough influence on the government to make the Freedom of Religion right unable to be done. Unless you want a theocracy.

If you think the country should be based and only based on the ideals of Christians, then you're ignoring other's right to Freedom of Religion. If gay marriage is not allowed, you're abiding by a rule given by the Church, making it unconstitutional because its favoring one religion over the others.

Logically from a legal standpoint, this whole argument is pointless when basing that argument. Try another.
California doesn't want to ignore anybody rights, that is the whole point of the vote is for. To let the people decide. America goes by majority rule. If there are more christian views, the christian belief wins. If there where alot more people believing same sex marriage is acceptable, then that will prevail. Its not favoritism, it's basic democracy. (Also I know some homosexuals who don't support gay marriage, they say it brings to negative emotions out, and only cause conflict.)
~There are those people who understand hex, F the rest

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
California doesn't want to ignore anybody rights, that is the whole point of the vote is for. To let the people decide. America goes by majority rule. If there are more christian views, the christian belief wins. If there where alot more people believing same sex marriage is acceptable, then that will prevail. Its not favoritism, it's basic democracy. (Also I know some homosexuals who don't support gay marriage, they say it brings to negative emotions out, and only cause conflict.)
It isnt decided by majority vote if it is voted on by a circuit judge or a district court of appeals. Majority vote isnt true quality either, all that means is there are more of a certain group of people, in this case christians, so that point is void.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
It isnt decided by majority vote if it is voted on by a circuit judge or a district court of appeals. Majority vote isnt true quality either, all that means is there are more of a certain group of people, in this case christians, so that point is void.
What better way is there to create laws in a nation that claims to govern by the consent of the governed by letting the governed have a direct share in the governing?

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
Groups other than children barred from marriage include polygamists and people who believe in human-animal relationships.

Our side won't lose that easily. If you know the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, you would know that its dominated by conservatives.

Also same-sex marriage ban =/= religion. No where in the text of Proposition 8 is religion mentioned.



And people like me did not deny blacks the vote. People like me freed the slaves and led the way in the black civil rights movement. Who were the KKK? Oh, that's right, Southern Democrats.
And if the judges are all conservative, then how can they be objective when they're always going to lean that way?

And yes, religion does have a hand here. Same sex marriage isnt looked well upon by the church, or by Christianity. It may not be in Prop 8, but the opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in America's Judeo-christian belief system.

And the "southern democrats" you speak of, werent democrats at all. They're conservatives, its just that ideological shift in the 60s-70 to blame.

What better way is there to create laws in a nation that claims to govern by the consent of the governed by letting the governed have a direct share in the governing?
But we dont have a direct say in all ares of government. In example, The electoral college technically chooses the president, not the popular vote. So the electoral college, made up of some electors, can throw out 50 million votes essentially.