Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: iamzack on January 12, 2010, 08:05:33 pm
-
Been watching the live bloggers today and yesterday.
I like this one (http://prop8trialtracker.com/) the best so far.
So far I'm optimistic. The defense seems really weak (but that could be due to the blogger's bias). Hoping they'll start allowing video on youtube soon.
But maybe I am *too* optimistic. Oh, what a world.
-
Given legal precedent I don't see how Prop 8 can stand. Goodness knows marriage could use the help.
Crossing my fingers.
-
Little side argument (or not?) from 538
"Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans"
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
-
The judge seems like a pretty smart fellow. Honestly I don't know **** about any of the specific people involved. :P
But yesterday he asked a few different people their opinion on taking the state out of marriage altogether. I don't see that happening, though. That would be kinda huge... I mean, unless they just were changing the name.
-
Ted Olson’s opening statement (http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/) is also worth a read, as is his article for Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957). Olson, interestingly enough, is apparently a pretty well-known conservative who supported Bush in Bush v. Gore.
-
But yesterday he asked a few different people their opinion on taking the state out of marriage altogether. I don't see that happening, though. That would be kinda huge... I mean, unless they just were changing the name.
If there's a state crazy enough to do that, it's California.
-
There's already been one mention of whether overturning prop 8 will be precedence that could turn over DOMA. I think DOMA is the federal version of prop 8?
News on this trial is a bit sketchy so far. XP
-
Yeah, pretty much. Says the federal government recognizes marriages as between a man and a woman, and that states don't have to recognize same sex marriages from another state.
-
Doesn't that go directly against the constitution? What's it called, where states have to recognize laws and stuff from other states?
-
The Full Faith and Credit clause. Except there's an easy workaround to that by simply claiming that a gay marriage license isn't the same as a hetero license, and thus is a unique law which has no equivalent in any statutes from other states.
-
Oh. ****, dude. That's ****in retarded.
-
Maybe, but it does make enough logical (and legal) sense that it will work. And that's a lesser evil than contemplating politicians trying to neuter the FF&C clause simply because if this.
-
as much as I hate prop 8 this is not the right way to go about this, the reason why prop 8 passed in the first place is because a few courts decided to just go and allow gay marriages in spite of the laws, this is only going to cause a stronger backlash of the same nature that prop 8 was. I know it lacks the 'forcing the stupid people to do what I want' fun and requires horrible horrible patience, but the right way to do this is through the legislative process, useing the courts is only going to piss off and polarize the vetoing blocks who's support you need.
-
How do you think black people got civil rights? It sure as hell wasn’t by popular vote.
Edit: And if the supreme court strikes down discriminatory, unconstitutional legislation, then it’s doing exactly what it was created to do. The courts in this country were conceived as a check on legislative power, and they seem to be taking care of business.
-
Loving vs Virginia, Brown vs Board of Education...
Unfortunately, the ONLY way to do this is through the courts.
-
why was prop 8 put on the ballot to begin with?
you realize this is where constitutional amendments come from right?
-
Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment. Not a national one, but it does amend the California constitution.
-
yeah, I know.
the civil rights movement was composed of many fronts, a lot of it was getting laws passed and getting people to change there minds,
the next step for the conservatives is a national constitutional amendment, and if you piss enough of them off they will have the fuel to enact one.
7 years ago, it looked like gay marage was on it's way in, the gay community moved too aggressively IMHO and now we have constitutional amendments popping up all over the place. every-time you make a step forward using legal force you get pushed three steps back by the rest of the country that really doesn't much care about you, you need to not piss them off.
-
Prop 8 should never have been put up to a popular vote. The entire point of having a constitution is to prevent tyranny by the majority over the minority, and establish rights that can't be taken away. The parallel to civil rights and interracial marriage is a completely true one, down to the same organizations making the same arguments.
-
So what exactly are you suggesting, Bobboau? That we just sit around and do nothing and wait another decade for equal rights?
-
it would be better that it takes a decade or two and happens stably rather than a republican president and congress use the issue to distract the populous from the spiraling economy and manage to pass a federal constitutional amendment. oh... but that's totally not something they would do....
you need to push just strong enough that you make progress on average, but not so aggressively that the masses see you as a "threat to their way of life". however the **** that works I don't know, but I do know that's how it will be perceived if you try to change too much too fast. you need to work on changing the popular perception that allows that sort of irrational fear before you can make significant legislative progress. you are not thinking on a long term strategic level. you are trying to do socially what Bush tried to do militarily in Iraq, you are not going to win if the native population wants to fight you.
-
you need to push just strong enough that you make progress on average, but not so aggressively that the masses see you as a "threat to their way of life". however the **** that works I don't know, but I do know that's how it will be perceived if you try to change too much too fast.
these people believe that there's an omnipotent, omniscient being that takes an interest in this particular planet, that he sent his own son down here and then had him killed in order to guilt them into behaving, and then also believe that said being actually cares what they do with their genitalia
don't expect reason to work.
-
they used to believe that you would be banished to a lake of fire for growing different crops in the same field. you can change the minds of the majority. the 1990s is a good example of how to proceed, the last decade is a good example of how not to proceed.
-
There are things people are not willing to wait around forever for.
-
impatience is a weakness that can be exploited by your enemies.
-
So is complacency.
-
true, which is why "you need to push just strong enough that you make progress on average, but not so aggressively that the masses see you as a "threat to their way of life"."
-
I believe a similar argument occurred during the civil rights movement. In that case, ultimately judicial action won out (with some legislative follow-through), and people just got used to it.
-
alright, well on a completely separate issue, what is the argument for this case? IIRC the US constitution is silent on the issue of gay rights, and if the US constitution doesn't say anything then I beleive that means the state gets to do what ever it wants.
-
I linked Ted Olson’s opening statement on the first page. That’s about as good a summary as you can get.
-
I have a question. Suppose that Prop 8 is overturned, and gays are allowed to marry. Will religious officials be forced to marry gay couples, even if they don't want to?
-
don't think so, at least not as a religious ceremony, priests don't have to perform jewish ceremonies.
-
Religion should not be a required component of marriage so long as marriage is a political institution.
-
Ted Olson’s opening statement (http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/) is also worth a read, as is his article for Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957). Olson, interestingly enough, is apparently a pretty well-known conservative who supported Bush in Bush v. Gore.
First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.
Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.
Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.
[/qoute]
this is what I was worried about, "it is unlawful under the united states constitution" is not one of the things they are trying to prove. I don't think that bodes well for this case.
-
My question isn't whether or not marriage is religious. If people choose to give marriage a religious meaning that's their choice. My question is whether or not a pastor, priest, minister, or rabbi who opposes gay marriage will be somehow forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe not directly as a result of this trial, but possibly as a later lawsuit if a gay couple tries to obtain a religious marriage ceremony from an official who is opposed to gay marriage.
-
separation of church and state is a two way street, in their capacity as a religious official there is no grounds for the government to compel them to do anything.
-
To get it struck down by federal court, they have to prove that it is unlawful under the constitution. To do that, they prove that it is discriminatory and fulfills no valid purpose.
I hope you read the entire statement instead of just skimming the section headings, because I found the closing paragraphs to be particularly relevant:
At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.
There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.
It is unconstitutional.
My question isn't whether or not marriage is religious. If people choose to give marriage a religious meaning that's their choice. My question is whether or not a pastor, priest, minister, or rabbi who opposes gay marriage will be somehow forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe not directly as a result of this trial, but possibly as a later lawsuit if a gay couple tries to obtain a religious marriage ceremony from an official who is opposed to gay marriage.
No religious official is going to be compelled to perform gay marriages, nor will they be forced to allow them on church property. But heterosexual couples can go to city hall and get married without ever setting foot in a church, and homosexual couples should be entitled to the same.
-
this is what I was worried about, "it is unlawful under the united states constitution" is not one of the things they are trying to prove. I don't think that bodes well for this case.
The very last sentence of the statement, clearly set apart and easily visible, was "It is unconstitutional."
This was not the first time it was mentioned.
Read, dammit!
-
No religious official is going to be compelled to perform gay marriages, nor will they be forced to allow them on church property. But heterosexual couples can go to city hall and get married without ever setting foot in a church, and homosexual couples should be entitled to the same.
Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen now as a direct result of this case. What I'm worried about is if Prop. 8 is declared unconstitutional, then a gay couple goes to a religious official opposed to gay marriage and they demand a ceremony, he refuses, and then the gay couple files a lawsuit claiming he is infringing on their constitutional right to marriage.
-
Well, I don't imagine that lawsuit would get very far, since they can just go into a city hall to get married.
-
Okay. Well, let's say Prop. 8 does get overturned, and homosexual marriage is allowed, which seems extremely likely. Do any of you think that the polygamists will climb out of the woodwork and claim that they are being discriminated against since they aren't allowed to have multiple spouses?
-
Since nobody has the right to polygamy, it's not as if an existing majority right is being denied to a minority.
Fundamentally different from the current case.
-
Okay. I'm probably just being paranoid then.
-
Actually if more people would ask those questions instead of assuming they will happen I doubt Prop 8 would have passed in the first place.
Too many people said that they'd vote for it because they didn't want their churches to be forced to marry gay people. As you've seen that issue could have been cleared up in a few minutes if they'd been willing to listen. :rolleyes:
-
The very last sentence of the statement, clearly set apart and easily visible, was "It is unconstitutional."
This was not the first time it was mentioned.
Read, dammit!
I did read it, I read that line I didn't see how he was planning on proving that statement.
"discriminatory and fulfills no valid purpose."
what part of the constitution does this violate, has sexual orientation been added to the list of protected minorities? (not rhetorical, I'm asking the question I don't know)
I suppose the fourteenth amendment is a good place to work from
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
they could win on that argument. he should have specifically mentioned it if that was what he was planning though.
-
He specifies the constitutional rights that he believes are being violated in the statement.
-
I meant he should have said something along the line of "I shall prove that this is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
but what ever I guess that answers my question, they might win with that argument, I just hope they time it so it happens after the election not right before like California did. or else well have the same mess that started this only on a national level.
-
The thing is, it’s a hell of a lot harder to amend the national constitution than to amend a state constitution. California did it by a popular vote. Amendments to the US constitution have to be passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states.
While a Supreme Court ruling against gay marriage could set us back a couple years, or several years, and a lot of people are worried about it, it seems highly unlikely that a discriminatory definition will be codified in the constitution.
-
I am worried that the momentum for it could be made