[iamzack]

Prop 8 Upheld

Most important quote in the article, IMHO:

"The initiative process in California is flawed," Jacobs tells TIME. "The very idea that a majority can vote to take rights away from a minority is flawed. It really is quite outrageous."

That view got one vote on the court - that of lone dissenter Justice Carlos J. Moreno. "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," Moreno wrote. "It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority."

[Flipside]

That's sad, but then, this is the home state of some real fruit-loop politicians.

[SpardaSon21]

Don't look at me, all I did was vote for Prop. 8.

So aside from that little matter, I am of the opinion the Supreme Court made the right decision, regardless of my personal opinion on same-sex marriage.  The California Supreme Court decided based on the law that the challengers didn't have a valid argument.  The challengers stated that Prop. 8 was a constitutional revision, and needed to be brought to the initiative process by the Legislature to be valid.  The Supreme Court disagreed, and said it was a perfectly legal amendment.  In case you're wondering what the difference between a revision and an amendment is, a revision is a broad re-write of the state Constitution, whereas an amendment is a limited change.  And the court ruled that it was not a broad change, but instead well within the scope of an amendment.

[Turambar]

Why do you hate gay people and freedom, Sparda?

[The E]

As a non-american, I'm with Scalzi on this.

In the meantime, I will revel in the fact that every time one of the people in those 18,000 real live actual legally recognized in the State of California same-sex married couples does something associated with the state recognizing the legal status of their marriage, they will be taking one of their fingers — the one with the wedding band on it — and poking it directly into the eye of bigotry. You tried to kill my marriage, but it and I am still here, I hear them saying to the Prop 8 supporters. You tried to kill my marriage. You failed.

[Knight Templar]

Don't look at me, all I did was vote for Prop. 8.

So aside from that little matter, I am of the opinion the Supreme Court made the right decision, regardless of my personal opinion on same-sex marriage.  The California Supreme Court decided based on the law that the challengers didn't have a valid argument...

What law?

Here are some laws.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

I don't really remember where those laws came from, but they feel familiar somehow. Maybe someone can help me.

[Nuclear1]

I watched this as MSNBC was broadcasting it...I sunk a little bit.

EDIT: Also to quote something that was as relevant then as it is now:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

[iamzack]

I'm a Quaker. Quakers don't mind marrying gay people.

MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So suck it, Christians.

[StarSlayer]

I'm not sure why religion should play any part in this.  Its a secular state law issue, not a religious one.  The State recognizes same sex marriage, not the church.   The National Guard isn't goose stepping down to the local church and holding M-16s to the preachers' heads forcing them to marry people.  If the Church isn't forced into recognizing the marriage then that should be good enough for them.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

This does set some disturbing precedents.  Let's say the KKK want's to put a ban on interracial marriage on the ballot (was illegal at one time).  If it passes it would have to be upheld for the same reason.  Basically any group with a 51% majority can now step on the rights of any smaller group by just placing something on the ballot.   

[iamzack]

I'm not sure why religion should play any part in this.  Its a secular state law issue, not a religious one.  The State recognizes same sex marriage, not the church.   The National Guard isn't goose stepping down to the local church and holding M-16s to the preachers' heads forcing them to marry people.  If the Church isn't forced into recognizing the marriage then that should be good enough for them.

Because the *only* arguments against gay marriage are religious ones. Pointing to ONE religion which accepts gay marriage kills the argument.

American Democracy != two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[Ford Prefect]

Just because people might cite their religion as the reason for their opposition to gay marriage doesn't mean we can really attribute the phenomenon to religion. Populations take time to adjust to paradigmatic shifts in their cultures; the web of interdependent factors that lead up to any given controversy could fill volumes. And guess what? Whatever people have gotten used to, that's what their religion is going to be okay with.

I'm soundly convinced that within our lifetimes we're going to see gay marriage legalized in most, if not all, of the country. I have Evangelical Christian friends who are strong supporters of gay marriage. At this point, it's more a question of age than anything else; younger voters are more and more comfortable with homosexuality, and the change in attitude is going to start having real effects. I think the situation in California, in a larger context, is really not that big a deal.

[iamzack]

That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.

[Ziame]

That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.

And biology/evolution...

[iamzack]

Biology/evolution do not preclude natural homosexuality, seeing as we're not even close to the only mammalian species to have homosexuals among our numbers.

[Ford Prefect]

That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.

Maybe, but if we really want to effect change, I think the knowledge that debates like this are, at their centers, always more generally cultural than religious is advantageous, because it gives us the perspective to focus on normalizing homosexuality, rather than validating people's religious arguments by becoming embroiled in silly hermeneutical debates that just skim the surface of the issue.

[iamzack]

It's really a nonissue, though. If they can't come up with a reason that isn't religion, they lose automatically.

It actually kinda simplifies things.

"Because God said so" renders your argument automatically invalid.

[Krelus]

It's really a nonissue, though. If they can't come up with a reason that isn't religion, they lose automatically.

It actually kinda simplifies things.

"Because God said so" renders your argument automatically invalid.

At some point I delivered a speech to my fellow classmates on the subject. I acknowledged that religion plays a strong part in someone's beliefs and values, which is why separation of church and state is difficult at best. However, you cannot prohibit an action based purely on tradition and/or religion. You need a pragmatic reason. If it has a good reason to be done and happens to coincide with religion, fine. Otherwise, GTFO.

Also, the Bible doesn't just prohibit same-sex marriage:

Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Nice double-standard, people. Unless you're ready to start killing homosexuals, don't for a moment consider religion to be a valid argument. It just embarrasses yourself.

Over the past years I've had about enough of holier-than-thou zealots thinking they can step on the toes of other people. Not all religious people are like this, thankfully, but enough are for it to be a serious problem.

[karajorma]

Actually the Christians are going to claim that law only applies to the Jews.

[Knight Templar]

That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.

And biology/evolution...

lol don't even try that. it's been done before and fails.