About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

Marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman. That is the opinion I hold on the matter. And, incidentally, my opinion on this matter seems to be supported by a majority, both in the popular vote and in the SCOTUS. You hold a different opinion, and without majority support.

---

"Marriage means a civil union between two people of the same race. That is the opinion I hold on the matter. And, incidentally, my opinion on this matter seems to be supported by a majority, both in the popular vote and in the SCOTUS. You hold a different opinion, and without majority support."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?You do recall that when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws, more than 70% of the population felt that interracial marriages should remain criminalized. That's more than currently think same-sex marriage should remain criminalized. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overturn the majority opinion? After all, the Constitution means nothing, right?

quote:

---

We can have differing opinions, can't we? Why is yours so supremely moral and superior to mine?

---

Because one is bigoted (denying to others that which is demanded for oneself) while the other is not. One is unconstitutional (Fourteenth Amendment) while the other is not.

quote:

---

Why should the majority opinion be overthrown to grant you yours?

---

Because the Constitution isn't a popularity contest.Was the SCOTUS wrong in the Loving v. Virginia decision? Majority opinion, still to this day, is that interracial marriage should be criminalized. Does the Constitution mean nothing?

quote:

---

And why would you even care, so long as homosexuals are granted their equal civil-union rights? In my opinion, marriage is not one of them.

---

"And why would you even care, so long as interracial couples are gratned their equal civil-union rights? In my opinion, marriage is not one of them."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia decision?

quote:

---

If you look at this matter deeply enough you'll see that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

---

You don't really believe that. If you did, you wouldn't call your previous relationships "marriages."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

Marrige is something that is upto the states, not the Federal government...so...your...US constitution stance is rather irrelevant, you see?

---

So when the SCOTUS overturned Virginia's miscegenation laws in the Loving v. Virginia decision, they were wrong to do so?

quote:

---

The 9th may propect from a national amendment like prop 8, but on a STATE level, the 9th does not apply, as this...is...a...STATE issue.

---

Incorrect. The Fourteenth Amendment gives the US Constitution supremacy. It wouldn't be much of a First Amendment right to free speech of the state could take it away. States are free to recognize more rights than the feds, but they cannot take away federal rights.If the Loving v. Virginia case was correct, how does it not apply here? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Hint: Even Scalia has said that Lawrence v. Texas means that gay people have the right to get married. Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

kinda like how i wish i had a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v. Vriginia as if it even applies to this at all.

---

You mean the declaration that marriage is a fundamental right in the Loving v. Virginia case has nothing to do with whether or not citizens can get married?Let's see how well you know the case: Can you quote the exact statement I'm referring to? No, don't look it up. That'd be cheating. We need to know how much you know about the case right now, not after you crib it. See, you seem to be arguing from a place of ignorance.OK, now that we've established that, go look it up. Please explain how marriage being a fundamental right as declared in the Loving v. Virginia case, how laws cannot be based upon sexual orientation as declared in the Lawrence v. Texas case, and how the Fourteenth Amendment don't add up to a fundamental right for gay people to get married to each other.Even Scalia says that the three of those necessarily require it. You have read the Lawrence v. Texas decision, yes? We're back to that arguing from a position of ignorance again.

quote:

---

the lovings were convicted of violating a law that stated only whites can marry whites, and challenged it. I dont even see how a case will be brought up against prop 8. the scenarios aren't even remotely close.

---

That's because you're conflating two issues.There is the federal guarantee regarding marriage and then there is the state issue of methodology regarding the process by which the amendment was passed.That is, the state case regarding Prop 8 as it currently stands has to do with whether or not the proposition is a simple amendment to the constitution which can be initiated via referendum or whether it is a revision which requires it to originate in the legislature and be passed by two-thirds of it before it goes to a vote.Whether or not it is an amendment or revision is independent of the fundamental right of gay people to marry. That is guaranteed by the US Constitution and if the challenge against Prop 8 fails, it might be overturned by the SCOTUS given the facts of Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and the Fourteenth Amendment.You will notice that Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas all overturned state laws (and in the case of Romer v. Evans, an amendment to Colorado's constitution) due to the fact that they violated the US Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees federal supremacy. It wouldn't be much of a right if the State is allowed to take it away.

quote:

---

So two homosexuals leave CA and go to Taxachussets and get married

---

Except they can't. Unlike mixed-sex couples, Massachusetts has decided to enforce the law requiring residency before allowing same-sex couples to marry. You have to live there a year first.

quote:

---

will they get arrested when they return to CA? no, thier marriage will just not be accepted.

---

Which, if there is a fundamental right to marriage, is a violation of Article IV, Section 1.Do you know what the options the Lovings were presented with when they came back from DC? No, of course not...you don't know the case. They were offered the chance to leave the state and never return, no jail time, no fine.The Loving v. Virginia decision found that to be unconstitutional.

quote:

---

its over folks.

---

So the Loving v. Virginia decision was a waste of time. After all, they could have simply left Virginia. "It's over folks," right?

quote:

---

Just so you know...the 14th amendment is BS.

---

Right...so the Loving v. Virginia decision was incorrect since it is based in the Fourteenth Amendment.

quote:

---

you will never hear me use it as a support for anything, because its wrong, and contrary to the original idea of what this country is.

---

Huh? Article IV, Section 2: Amendment Fourteen: Are you seriously claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment is anathema to Article IV, Section 2? How is it not a restatement and refinement of what was already declared in the main document?Be specific.

quote:

---

1. Its not up to SCOTUS.

---

So how did the SCOTUS manage to overturn the miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, the declaration of gay people to be strangers to the law in Romer v. Evans, the removal of laws based upon sexual orientation in Lawrence v. Texas? Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to the states?How do you reconcile that with Article IV, Section 2, since you apparently don't seem to think that the direct statement of such in the Fourteenth Amendment is valid.

quote:

---

2. cases are brought up to SCOTUS, not amendments to State constitutions

---

Then how did the SCOTUS overrule the Colorado constitution in Romer v. Evans?

quote:

---

3. California is not the only state that has an amendment like this.

---

So? Virginia wasn't the only state to have miscegenation laws.

quote:

---

4. The wording of Prop 8 is not discriminatory, it simply states what is. SCOTUS is going to have trouble pointing out discrimination where none exists

---

"The wording of the miscegenation laws was not discriminatory; they simply stated what was." So how on earth did the SCOTUS overturn them?Marriage is a fundamental right: Loving v. Virginia
Gay people cannot be made strangers to the law: Romer v. Evans
Laws cannot be based upon the sexual orientation of the person: Lawrence v. TexasHow, then, does a law that restricts marriage to heterosexuals be something other than discriminatory?You did read the IN RE decision, yes? The California constitution clearly defines restricting marriage only to mixed-sex couples to be discriminatory and a violation of the state constitution. How, then, does writing an amendment that enshrines that discriminatory policy not discriminatory?

quote:

---

5. SCOTUS needs to tread carefully when dealing with state constitutions, for contract of statehood reasons, SCOTUS realizes this, and will probably work to keep the union together.

---

Right, because the nation disintegrated in the wake of Loving v. Virginia, overturning the laws of the states with regard to marriage. The nation disintegrated in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, overturning the laws of the states with regard to criminalization of non-heterosexual sex. The nation disintegrated in the wake of Romer v. Evans when the SCOTUS invalidated an amendment to a state constitution.You do realize that Scalia is the most activist judge on the court. He has voted to overturn more laws than any other judge on the bench. How is it his actions have not completely ripped the country apart?

quote:

---

I think its hilarious Barack Obama got all these blacks to go out and vote, and then those same people were key in passing prop 8, the liberals totally F'ed themselves on that one.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While it is true that black voters voted for Prop 8 at around 70%, that is a raw fact and is meaningless outside of context.If the voter breakdown from Prop 22 in 2000 (the law that outlawed same-sex marriage that was overturned by the IN RE decision) were still present in 2008, then Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin than it did.Instead, Obama's presence on the ticket brought out a huge turnout and Prop 8 passed by a slimmer margin.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

Might Prop. 8 be reviewed by U.S. supreme court and be ruled unconstitutional?

---

Indeed, but that would require the case to get into the federal system. Everybody knows that once it does, it is going to go to the Supreme Court, so they are looking for the "perfect case."

quote:

---

and

​

Even Scalia has said that Lawrence v. Texas means that gay people have the right to get married.

---

As he said in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas: Those words may come back to bite him. Of course, Scalia will simply ignore his own logic since he really doesn't care about the Constitution and what it means. He is the most activist judge on the court.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick responds to me:

quote:

---

btw: I am not a homophobic bigot.

---

You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself based solely on their sexual orientation. That is the definition of "homophobic bigot."If you could explain how "separate but equal" is legitimate when applied to sexual orientation but is bogus when applied race, then you might be able to avoid the observation of denying to others that which you demand for yourself.

quote:

---

You must be hysterical.

---

(*chuckle*)I'm not going to have sex with you, Fosdick, so stop asking.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

It does no such thing it only clearly states what a marriage is in California.

---

Just like the laws in Virginia stated what a marriage was in Virginia, and yet the SCOTUS overturned it. How could that possibly happen?

quote:

---

You can’t really take a way something that wasn’t there in the 1st place.

---

Except the California Supreme Court had ruled the right was there. That was the entire point behind the IN RE decision. You did read it, did you not?

quote:

---

Yet in the same link it clearly states 70% of black voted for prop 8. are you fond of sources that contradict each other?

---

No. Are you fond of removing context? Raw numbers are meaningless without understanding where they came from.If the same voter breakdown that existed in 2000 when Prop 22 was passed (which was a law discriminating against gay people in their right to get married), then Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin.But instead, Obama brought out a huge turnout who were more likely to vote against Prop 8 and thus, it only passed by a slim margin.

quote:

---

If you understand anything about the reconstruction south you know that it was a mockery of liberty.

---

And yet, 150 years later, every state in the union has ratified it. It's possible they're all wrong, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument.

quote:

---

Prop 8 passed . let it go.

---

"The miscegenation laws passed...let it go."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, one of the judges who voted in the majority in Hardwick later said that he was wrong to do so. Should American citizens have just "let it go"?"Dred Scot passed...let it go."
"Plessy v. Ferguson passed...let it go."So those were good things and nobody should have complained?Great...so if we get 50%+1 of the electorate to vote to make you my slave, then you're not going to complain, right? "It passed...let it go."Show of hands: Who here votes to make Artemis Entreri my slave?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kuresu writes:

quote:

---

Oh, and if you're going to critique FO's grammar, check your own first. Internet is not plural.

---

Tell that to George Bush: Since then, "internets" has become a bit of a common thing to say, especially when someone is trying to make the other person look stupid.An extension of this is Senator Stevens (yes...that Senator Stevens) description of the internet: A common way of making fun of this is to call it the "intertubes."If you have installed Chrome, are on Windows XP, and have sspipes.scr installed, type in the following URL:about:internetsIt'll bring up the Pipes screen saver with a message of "Don't Clog the Tubes!" If you don't have the above setup, you'll get a blank screen with the message, "The Tubes are Clogged!"

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

not only a right but an unalienable right.

---

And as the SCOTUS declared in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right.Were they wrong to do so?Are fundamental rights only applicable to heterosexuals? Gay people aren't citizens?

quote:

---

gays can still get married the way polygamists do

---

What does polygamy have to do with anything? How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy while mixed-sex marriage does not? Considering that we've never had same-sex marriage and yet we've had polygamy for thousands of years, it would seem to be the other way around.

quote:

---

The Pedophiles, and the Polygamists are on your side now.

---

Why does the thought of same-sex marriage immediately make you think of raping all of your children? How does same-sex marriage lead to molestation of multiple children while mixed-sex marriage does not? We've never had same-sex marriage and yet entire families of children are raped all the time. It would seem that mixed-sex marriage leads to it.

quote:

---

marry who you want as many times as you want no matter what their age is. yeah freedom!

---

Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead to that while mixed-sex marriage doesn't?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

I just wanted to say the the blacks who came in to vote for obama helped to pass prop 8.

---

But this statement is naive and ignores the context.Again, if the same voter breakdown that existed in 2000 when Prop 22 passed were present in 2008, then Prop 8 would have passed by an even stronger margin.But, Obama brought out a strong voter population and Prop 8 won only by a slim margin.Therefore, Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

but race was also a factor

---

No, not really. Again, if the breakdown had been the same as it was back in 2000, Prop 8 would have passed by a higher margin than it did.Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

and more blacks voted in this election than in previous ones.

---

And since Prop 8 passed by a smaller margin than it would have were it not for the turnout Obama generated, the conclusion is actually that Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

now you said age in the begining and now you are saying age, income and religion.

---

(*sigh*)You do understand the concept of relative significance, yes? The most significant factor in Prop 8's passage was age. That doesn't mean no other factors were involved, but it does mean that age was the big one.Again, if 2008 were like 2000 when Prop 22 passed, Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin than it did. Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

All I said was that the Loving case was not related to prop 8.

---

Considering that the IN RE decision (which Prop 8 reversed) using Loving v. Virginia as a justification for why gay people have the right to marry, it will be interesting to hear you explain why it is not connected.It is in Loving v. Virginia that we find the SCOTUS declaring that marriage is a fundamental right. Since Prop 8 denies the right to marry to gay people, how can it not be relevant? Gay people aren't citizens and therefore are not entitled to the fundamental right of marriage?

quote:

---

I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government.

---

Exactly how can you have the right to free speech if the state is capable of taking it away? Your rights have to be able to go all the way down or they don't mean anything.

quote:

---

it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.

---

Then you clearly don't accept Article IV, Section 2 because it says the same thing: So how do you reconcile your claim? We should overturn Article IV, too?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

I simply find it bizarre to suggest that the Federal government is being tyrannical in taking a stand against tyranny at the level of the State governments.

---

It's the natural extension of the idea that refusing to accept intolerance is intolerance.Of course, the Constitution already stated that the states couldn't override federal guarantees in Article IV, Section 2, but the Fourteenth Amendment makes it more explicit. If AE is truly upset over the Fourteenth, then he must think the unamended Constitution itself is out of bounds.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.