Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[davester]

Trouble wrote: Marriage isn't a right and if the litmus test is 8 years then who cares about global warming, right?

I think this comment is a low water mark, even for you. You managed to blow off supreme court precedent regarding the right to marry (also disregarding all the additional rights and benefit that the government awards to those who are married) and somehow managed to get in a completely inane crack at global warming at the same time.

[Trouble]

davester wrote:
[quote=Trouble]Marriage isn't a right and if the litmus test is 8 years then who cares about global warming, right?

I think this comment is a low water mark, even for you. You managed to blow off supreme court precedent regarding the right to marry (also disregarding all the additional rights and benefit that the government awards to those who are married) and somehow managed to get in a completely inane crack at global warming at the same time.
Oh well. Grace's test for calamity was 8 years. Don't get upset for me pointing out the inanity of it.

[Trouble]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Trouble]
[quote=Grace62]
Looks like we're going down a path similar to Loving v. Virginia, as was long predicted. A state cannot pass a law that treats one class of people differently without some compelling reason, and that reason cannot be religious belief. And marriage is a basic right. We've had gay couples marrying in the US for 8 years now, and longer in other countries, and the predicted calamities have not come to pass.

Sorry haters.

Marriage isn't a right and if the litmus test is 8 years then who cares about global warming, right? By the way, nice demonization with calling everyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman a 'hater." Classy move.

A pair of federal judges has now reached the conclusion that the basis for Prop 8 was dislike of gay people, pure and simple. I am far from alone in that "classy move."

And the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right. See Loving V. Virginia, 1967.
In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

Trouble, I accept that you disapprove of gay people getting married. That's fine. We've had the argument before, and as I recall it was not particularly fruitful.
I think your side is going to lose. Don't really have anything to add.
So a pair of judges can divine and speak for the majority of Californians who voted for this? No idea that all of those liberals in what could be the most liberal state in the country all hate gay people. Give me a break. If I recall correctly, our little discussion was fruitless because you couldn't answer a single question.

[Grace62]

Trouble wrote:

So a pair of judges can divine and speak for the majority of Californians who voted for this? No idea that all of those liberals in what could be the most liberal state in the country all hate gay people. Give me a break. If I recall correctly, our little discussion was fruitless because you couldn't answer a single question.

That's the defense that the defenders of the bill tried to use, yes. They had nothing else.

And as you recall, neither Gov. Brown nor the state of California would defend Prop 8 in court. Anti-gay groups are the only ones who would do so.

[Trouble]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Trouble]

So a pair of judges can divine and speak for the majority of Californians who voted for this? No idea that all of those liberals in what could be the most liberal state in the country all hate gay people. Give me a break. If I recall correctly, our little discussion was fruitless because you couldn't answer a single question.

That's the defense that the defenders of the bill tried to use, yes. They had nothing else.

And as you recall, neither Gov. Brown nor the state of California would defend Prop 8 in court. Anti-gay groups are the only ones who would do so.
They had nothing else? Ever think that it was true? I can't believe you. In that liberal of a state, all of those people are now, all of a sudden, gay bashers. The only reason prop 8 passed was because California, CALIFORNIA OF ALL PLACES, is now the mecca of homophobia. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?

As for your second point, a Democratic politician in California not enforcing the law. Well, I've never heard of that happening before. (How big of an eye roll did you want?)

[Grace62]

Trouble wrote:

They had nothing else? Ever think that it was true? I can't believe you. In that liberal of a state, all of those people are now, all of a sudden, gay bashers. The only reason prop 8 passed was because California, CALIFORNIA OF ALL PLACES, is now the mecca of homophobia. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?

As for your second point, a Democratic politician in California not enforcing the law. Well, I've never heard of that happening before. (How big of an eye roll did you want?)

Yes of course it's true that they don't like gay people. I think that's the point. You can't make law based on that.
Instead of getting angry because I'm telling you what you don't want to hear, why don't you read the court case yourself, review the arguments, and see what you think. Decide for yourself. Interpret it any way you like.

[Trouble]

Grace62 wrote: Yes of course it's true that they don't like gay people. I think that's the point. You can't make law based on that.
Instead of getting angry because I'm telling you what you don't want to hear, why don't you read the court case yourself, review the arguments, and see what you think. Decide for yourself. Interpret it any way you like.

My bolded section of your quote explains why you can't discuss this. Your prejudice prevents you from thinking clearly. All of your "reasoning" of people that disagree with you on this comes from "their hate." And that simply isn't true. Hon, I'm not angry. I doubt if you could make me angry. Well, maybe in RL, but certainly not on a board. I don't care if you agree with me or not. No reason to get frustrated or angry.

[rjmacs]

Trouble wrote:
So a pair of judges can divine and speak for the majority of Californians who voted for this?

Well, in the Loving decision, the justices were able to overrule the majority of Virginians who had voted for a legislature that outlawed miscegenation. They clearly and unilaterally contravened the will of the people who had passed a law against marital race-mixing. Whether the voters were racist or traditional or had other reasons for supporting legalized discrimination was immaterial to the decision.

Regardless of the reasons for the discrimination, it's not debatable that Prop 8 was discriminatory (same-sex couples had the legal right to marry in CA, and Prop 8 voided that right). The disagreement is over whether the discrimination was justified and constitutional. You don't seem to want to address this point, instead focusing on Grace's characterization of motive.

[Kiva]

when, oh when will we get a conservative voice on this forum that makes reasonable, well-thought-out arguments? I have a good friend I should invite over...but he's a PC guy

[Grace62]

Here's what Hon. Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit had to say in his decision this week about the constitutionality of Prop 8:

"By emphasizing Proposition 8’s limited effect, we do not mean to minimize the harm that this change in the law caused same-sex couples and their families. To the contrary, we emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of ‘marriage.’ That designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couples desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.

It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause."

(this is a pretty good article about the way this decision was structured. They've set it up very nicely for the Supreme Court to go along with this, should it go that far.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07...d-decision