About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Just to point out:The IN RE Marriage Cases were decided on strict scrutiny. Emphasis added.And given that the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a fundamental right, there is something to be said that Prop 8 satisfies the definition of a "substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equlization, 22 Cal.3d 208) which characterizes a revision. Removing the fundamental rights of citizens is not a small thing.Personally, I don't hold much hope given that the original decision was 3-2 and homophobia is still rampant. Despite the declaration that gay people fall under "strict scrutiny," I will never underestimate the ability of people to forget what they just said and follow through on their claims.

---

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.

Chiroptera writes:

quote:

---

Actually, if anyone strikes me as a proponent of "judicial activism", its Scalia.

---

With "judicial activism" defined as "ruling to overturn a law," Scalia is the most activist judge. He is the judge on the Supreme Court who is most likely to overturn legislation.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

What do you have against voting on disputed social issues?

---

(*sigh*) Here we go again....For the umpteenth time: So when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virignia, they were wrong to do so?If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

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:

---

Government should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.

---

So the better solution, much more likely to succeed, is to rewrite literally tens of thousands of laws at the state and federal levels to remove the word "marriage" and replace it with the phrase "civil union" rather than to leave everything alone and recognize that the legal contract of "marriage" applies to all regardless of the sex of the participants? That's what you're suggesting?Strange how we didn't have this reaction when marriage was recognized for all regardless of the race of the participants. What's so special about sexual orientation that it gives you the heebie-jeebies to talk about marriage?

---

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.

Huntard writes:

quote:

---

It's just a title, what does this matter, as long as they have the same rights?

---

How many times do we have to learn the lesson of "separate but equal" before it sticks?By having two contracts, you necessarily draw a legal distinction between them no matter how much you insist they are the same. In every single jurisdiction that has tried to have the "separate but equal" fiction that is called "civil union," it has failed to be equal. There are always rights overlooked, there are always extra hoops that have to be jumped through.By having a separate contract, you make a legal distinction between them which will eventually get exploited and thus defeat the entire claim that they are equal. The only way to ensure equality is to have a single contract that applies to everybody.

quote:

---

If people "marry" by law, they should ALL get equal rights. People who ONLY "marry" by churches shouldn't get those rights, churches aren't governments.

---

But that's the way it currently is. You are only married in the eyes of the law if you sign the contract given to you by the clerk. Religious officials (and ship's captains and a host of other non-governmental officials) are given the power to act as state agents in registering the documents, but that is as a convenience. The ceremony in front of the altar and before all your family and friends, well, that's very nice. You don't actually get married until you go back into the office and sign that little piece of paper.

quote:

---

In my country, people can either marry by law and by the church, or only by law.

---

See, here, the only way to get married is by the law. You can have whatever ceremony you want with your church, but it doesn't mean a thing with regard to the law.Here in the US, divorce is legal. The Catholic Church is free not to recognize the legal status of divorce and can refuse to marry divorcees all they wish, but the law doesn't care. People who are divorced are not married and are free to marry again. They can't force themselves into a Catholic church to get married, but marriage isn't about the church. It's about the law and you aren't married unless you sign a piece of paper.

---

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:

---

quote:

---

So when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virignia, they were wrong to do so?

---

​

Then what would you have to whine about if neither California's Supreme Court nor SCOTUS overturned Prop.8?

---

That's not an answer. Let's try again, shall we?When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so? How many times do I need to ask this very simple question before you answer it?

quote:

---

Would you prefer a government that operates on the principle of minority opinion rules?

---

So the Constitution means nothing? If we were to get 50% + 1 of the people to vote that we had the legal right to make you my slave, you wouldn't complain at all? The vote was all nice and legal, right?Answer the question, please:When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so?

---

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:

---

Ah, what was the SCOTUS vote on that, again?

---

That's not an answer. Let's try again, shall we?When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so? How many times do I need to ask this very simple question before you answer it?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

But, onfire, you presume that "gay marriage" (an oxymoron in the face tradition) is an issue of human equality. You want to see the government legislate for homosexuality. Not everyone sees "gay marriage" as a human-rights issue. You know, there are other issues on the table involving human equality, as perceived by their respective plaintiffs.

---

"But, onfire [sic], you presume that 'interracial marriage' (an oxymoron in the face tradition [sic]) is an issue of human equality. You want to see the government legislate for race. Not every sees 'interracial marriage' as a human-rights issue. You know, there are other issues on the table involving human equality, as perceived by their respective plaintiffs."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? How many times do I have to ask this question before you answer it?

quote:

---

For example, there are those who believe that polygamy is a human-rights issue, too. So why not go out and march for their cause? (Hey, you might dig the Mormon chicks.)

---

Until you can explain how same-sex marriage leads to polygamy while mixed-sex marriage doesn't...especially since we have never had same-sex marriage and yet have had polygamy for thousands of years...then it is clear you don't understand your own argument and are simply trying to throw in red herrings to justify your homophobia.

quote:

---

Correct answer: Because it is only a matter of human opinion and not a matter of human equality.

---

"Interracial marriage is only a matter of human opinion and not a matter of human equality."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

So, what is wrong with my opinion that marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman?

---

So long as it remains just your opinion, go for it. But when you try to turn that opinion into public policy, you have to reconcile it with the Constitution and it clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment.Or does unconstitutionality mean nothing to you?

quote:

---

But if two of them want to get civilly united under the law I have no objection to that.

---

So the whole unconstitutional part doesn't bother you?

---

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 onifre:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is what I don't understand about your entire arguement. Why on Earth would you care what gay people are doing...?

---

​

Because I have a contrary opinion? Are you saying the First Amendment should suspended in my case?

---

That's not an answer. You were asked why you care. Go ahead and have your opinion. The problem is your statements regarding public policy.

quote:

---

If homosexuals don't want to be like heterosexuals, which seems obvious enough to me, then why do they want to do a heterosexual thing like get married? If they were truly committed to their caused they'd adopt a different term, like "homounionization" or "homobonding."

---

"If interracial couples don't want to be like same-race couples, which seems obvious enough to me, then why do they want to do a same-race thing like get married? If they were truly committed to their caused [sic] they'd adopt a different term, [sic] like 'interracialization' or 'interbonding.'"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 case?

quote:

---

Since they insist on being different from heterosexuals, I want to treat them as such.

---

"Since blacks insist on being different from whites, I want to treat them as such."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 case?

quote:

---

Please tell me, onfire, that homos don't want to be like heteros, because I'm getting crossed signals from them. Why couldn't they just say: "Gee, I really love you. Let's go down to the chapel and get homounionized"?

---

Please tell me, onfire [sic], that blacks don't want to be like whites, [sic] because I'm getting crossed signals from them. Why couldn't they just say: "Gee, I really love you. Let's go down to the chapel and get 'interracialized'?"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 case?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

You mean it's ridiculous to suggest that a majority should rule in a democracy?

---

So if we get 50%+1 to vote that you should be my slave, you won't complain?Show of hands: Who would vote to make Fosdick my slave?

quote:

---

What would you prefer instead?

---

What part of the function of the Constitution are you having trouble with?

---

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 b00tleg:

quote:

---

But what is un-free about granting gays their rights to civil unions

---

The unconstitutional part of it. Are you saying the Constitution means nothing?

quote:

---

Furthermore, gays are not specifically prohibited in any state from getting married

---

Incorrect. In every state but two, they are specifically prohibited from getting married.

quote:

---

"Gay marriage" is a bogus measure of freedom if "gay civil unions" are available to them.

---

"Civil unions" are not the equivalent to marriage. What part of the Constitutional prohibition on "separate but equal" are you having trouble with?Hint: The University of New Hampshire just told their staff that anybody who has a domestic partnership must get a civil union if they still wish to receive benefits. Civil unions have been available in the state for over a year, so they want to use the legal system that exists.Then came the pushback: Domestic partnership benefits aren't taxed just as marriage benefits aren't taxed. Civil union benefits, however, are. UNH has decided to pay the tax increase for those who enter into a civil union to make up for the unequal treatment between civil union and marriage.How many times do we need to learn the lesson that there is no such thing as "separate but equal" before we remember it? What part of the Constitution are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

After that, it's just about a term, isn't it.

---

Indeed. The legal term is "marriage." That's what's on the books. When we had this exact same discussion with regard to interracial marriage, we didn't try to come up with "civil union" to equate to "marriage." The SCOTUS directly pointed out that marriage was a fundamental human right. Are you saying they were wrong?If you want to keep your special friendship unique, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new term. Everybody already knows what "marriage" means and nobody will be confused about using it to refer to same-sex couples. You're the one trying to say that your relationship with your "special friend" is somehow different, therefore you are the one who needs to come up with a new term for it.

quote:

---

Why would I want to impose that on my gay friends?

---

Since gay relationships last longer than straight ones, have you considered the possibility that the problem isn't marriage but rather you?

quote:

---

Or maybe I'm just trying to reason with a bunch of hysterical people.

---

Or maybe you're just a homophobic bigot.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

why do you suppose SCOTUS has not yet overturned DOMA?

---

Because the SCOTUS cannot rule on cases that have not been brought before them. The only way for them to rule upon it is for a married same-sex couple to be brought into a lawsuit regarding their marital status and for it to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court.Gay people have been prohibited from getting married until very recently. There hasn't been a case for them to rule upon. Someone needs to get arrested first.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

I am neither religious nor a bigot.

---

You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That is the definition of bigotry.If you don't like it, then perhaps you should change your stance.

quote:

---

To believe that it does is both aristocentric and bigoted.

---

(*chuckle*)Ah yes, the old "refusing to accept intolerance is intolerance!" canard. Last refuge of the bigot when they know they don't have any justification for their claim.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

It's a civil-union certificate

---

Strange...the license I signed for my friends when they got married said "Marriage," not "Civil Union."Where is this "civil union" certificate that applies to mixed-sex couples? I can only find "marriage" certifications.How many times do we need to learn the "separate but equal" lesson before we remember it? Or does the Constitution mean nothing to you?

---

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.