[Bobboau]

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.

[Turambar]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[iamzack]

There are things people are not willing to wait around forever for.

[Bobboau]

impatience is a weakness that can be exploited by your enemies.

[Rian]

So is complacency.

[Bobboau]

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"."

[General Battuta]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Rian]

I linked Ted Olson’s opening statement on the first page. That’s about as good a summary as you can get.

[SpardaSon21]

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?

[Bobboau]

don't think so, at least not as a religious ceremony, priests don't have to perform jewish ceremonies.

[General Battuta]

Religion should not be a required component of marriage so long as marriage is a political institution.

[Bobboau]

Ted Olson’s opening statement is also worth a read, as is his article for Newsweek. 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.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Rian]

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.

[General Battuta]

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!

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[General Battuta]

Well, I don't imagine that lawsuit would get very far, since they can just go into a city hall to get married.