About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

What I am saying is that human rights are not up for voting, neither yours or anyone elses, regardless of sexual orientation. That makes the decision from the SCOTUS bogus. It was a decision that excluded a minority from taking part in a social process, and why, because they put their parts in different places then others of the same society. It doesn't make sense why anyone actually gives a shit about gay peoples lives if they are not gay. So, again, you feel that the current exclusion of a minority from a social process is OK as long as the SCOTUS says so? But, if they change their minds you'll flip yours too? Wow, what a good boy... How 'bout the law has no business inside anyones body? In fact wouldn't it be best not to classify based on gender but just on the fact that one is human? That way its two humans getting married; who cares whether it's male or female?That is why I continue to ask, Why do you care so much...?Do you have personal stock in this decision...?How would it affect your life...?Is it just semantics that you argue for...?Whats the point of your argument...?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Dear onfire,If you haven't got it by now I'm not optimistic about any future attempts to give it to you. But, being a kind and patient poster, here it is again.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. We can have differing opinions, can't we? Why is yours so supremely moral and superior to mine? Why should the majority opinion be overthrown to grant you yours? 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.I also hold the opinion that God doesn't exist. But you don't hear me calling for the government to shut down all the churches. Some people believe in God and need to go church. We don't want laws to make everybody do that, though, like they do in some Islamic cultures. People believe in all sorts of strange things. Why do we need laws to enforce them?If you look at this matter deeply enough you'll see that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage. Then Cupid's Chapel can marry whomever and whatever they please.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

"Equality means blacks and whites have the same thing, just segregated. Like schools. This 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. We can have differeing opinions, can't we? Why is yours so supremely moral and superior to mine? Why should the majority opinion be overthrown to grant you yours? And why would you even care so long as blacks are granted their equal rights? In my opinion, desegregation is not one of them."--a possible hootmon, or Fosdick who's illusory marriage caused little abner to marry daisy mae, in the 1950s before SCOTUS overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. BoEoT. It would be fair, I think, to state that the majority opinion in the south at this time was pro-segregation. I hope my re-wording makes it clear why your position is reprehensible.Do you see what's wrong with the tyranny of the majority? You do, of course, because you are willing to defend women's rights against a majority opinion. You're just a touch hypocritical, is all, and it's quite disgusting.Your argument is also fallacious. Argument of the majority, typically a creationist ploy (most people in the states think that the earth is less than 10k years old, so it must be true, for example), is not a valid support. A majority can be and often is wrong on issues. If the majority happens to be right, it would be an incidental matter, not a prime reason why something is true or right. Your argument depends upon the majority (in both society and SCOTUS) in order to support its properness. So quit using that fallacious reasoning if you want your opinion to hold any water. Find another method of support for your opinion.

Since you haven't understood what other posters have said to this point I will make one more attempt to enlighten you. Just because a majority of voters decide that a particular minority (in this case homosexuals, ~10% of the population so they will never be a majority) doesn't deserve a certain right doesn't make it legal or moral. Homosexuals will never have a majority so their rights will always be trampled on until people recognize this. It the majority decided that blue eyed people couldn't vote would that make it moral or right? What harm is there in allowing willing partners to marry regardless of sex? Currently marriage is a government institution and so therefore cannot discriminate based on sex or religion. This issue will definitely end up in the Supreme court within the next 20 years. Hopefully sooner than later.

Ok, show me any state law in the United States that allows civil unions between a gay couple that gives the same identical rights as a marriage between a hetero couple and I'll concede the point. But the law must be current and preferably the text of that law should be available from the website of that state that anyone can access.

Well... "we" don't have a democracy.You see, Fosdick, our Constitution is designed to protect its citizens from people like you. Majority doesn't rule in this Country. What we have...which is a Constitutional Republic.

But, my Fosdick friend, I do get it. I get what you're trying to convey as your opinion. No optimism needed, I assure you that you're PoV on the matter is quite well understood by me. Yup, I got it. But, again I'll ask, Why?Can you give me a reason for this being your opinion. I have given you my reasons why I don't agree with you, can you give me a good reason to hold this opinion.You don't believe in God so I don't attribute it to a religious stand point, so, what it is then? Well, morality is a tenative thing so lets not make it a moral issue, unless we equate inequality as immoral. But, lets stay off that so as not to draw into an argument over whos moral compass is better.The issue is about inequality. Opinions that cause one side to be excluded from something, like blacks going to white schools or gays being included in normal marital rights, are opinions that we should not value and should reject them. Now it is you who has missed the point. Being a polite poster I will try again to explain.I don't want peoples opinions to change, whether it is 80% of the poulation or 10%. My point is not that the majority has to change their opinion, my point is that no one group of people should be excluded from a social process simply because of a majority opinion.As it has been brought up before by other posters, segregation was the majority opinion. Was it wrong? Yes. But the majority didn't think so. What changed? Their opinion, or the law? Again, why? Who gives a shit. You're not religious so what is it about marraige that you feel is only for two specific kind of human being?Would two men or women getting married violate the integrity of marriage? Is that the reason?Im only asking because you seem like a very logical person, and as a comic I can admit you are quite funny too, but, where is your logic in this particular issue? Why do you hold to such an opinion when the reversal of that opinion would not affect your life in anyway? This seems like a petty argument on your behalf, it is just semantics.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

quote:

---

What we have...which is a Constitutional Republic.

---

Which is what the people of California exercised when they amended thier constitution with Proposition 8.Although it seems as if the majority DID decide, for the consitution on this one.

Well...actually...sorry to burst your bubble there AE, but "no", that's not at all what the people of California exercised.You see, AE, there's this pesky ol' document referred to as The United States Constitution. And, as it turns out, that document supersedes individual State Constitutions. Do you get it now, AE?...that's what is meant by a Constitution Republic. But again, since it violates the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it really doesn't matter how the majority voted. The U.S. Constitution sets the "rules", so to speak...since we are (as you agreed) a Constitutional Republic.

Well...actually...no bubble was burst because all you really said is that you disagree with me. Then you go on to say something irrelevant to what i said and...then ask me if i get it. I...will...say...you have a unique way of responding.Marrige is something that is upto the states, not the Federal government...so...your...US constitution stance is rather irrelevant, you see? FO, voters...in a STATEwide...referendum cannot break an amendment specifically designated for the FEDERAL government. 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.Do you get it now FO?

quote:

---

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

---

Except that states cannot have marriage laws that run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, in particular in this case, the Fourteenth Amendment. See Loving v. Virginia for one specific application of this rule.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, actually, the bill of rights does not apply solely to the federal level.That would be thanks to the 14th amendment. The states do not supercede the federal government. The states, for example, cannot write out freedom of speach. The states, for example, cannot abridge freedoms not mentioned in the constitution (the 9th amendment).Denying the right of marriage to homosexuals is denying a right not mentioned in the constitution. This depends, of course, on marriage being defined as a right. Unless you want to argue that men and women do not have the right to marry other men and women, then marriage can safely be defined as a right, and thusly fall under jurisdiction of the 9th amendment.

You're correct, I do disagree with you...because you were, and still are, wrong. You original snarky response (here it is again in case you forgot it)was in regards to me telling Fosdick that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.You're wrong...as the citizens of California are not an individual Constitution Republic. Rather they are the citizens of a State within our Constitutional Republic. Get it now AE? And in our Constitutional Republic, even individual States have to abide by our U.S. Constitution. Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, so it matters not, what the voters of California did. How was what I said irrelevant? I explained to you what is meant by a Constitutional Republic. You seemed to have had (and likely still do) this notion that California is a Constitutional Republic and can do whatever the hell they please. You're wrong. Yeah...those unique "facts" kinda suck, don't they. Well...let's see now. Does the Federal Government bestow certain rights to those that are married? Why, yes, I do believe that they do. As such, States cannot enact Laws or Amend their State Constitutions in such a manner that they violate the U.S. Constitution. I'm sorry, my bad...I was thinking of the 14th Amendment (as pointed out by subbie), but I do want to add that I believe that the 9th amendment is applicable as well.And here's section 1 of the 14th Amendment...just so you know."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. ; 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."
(bold mine)
Now, your challenge is to explain to me how Prop 8 does not violate the 14th Amendment. And please, let's not see any of the typical nonsense about how gays can get married...just not to someone of the same sex, since we both know that that is not a valid response. Nor do we need to see anything stupid, like how people are going to want to marry their dogs or a tree, or other such nonsense, as again, we both know that none of these are valid responses. Just explain to me why/how you believe (if indeed you do) that prop 8 will withstand Constitutional scrutiny by SCOTUS.Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a sentence.

Hello flies only
Would California's ratifying of prop 8 count as due process? In section 1 of article 14 it states So is the ammendment part of said due process? Or is it specifically referring to the judicial system?

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This is a somewhat complicated question.The short answer is yes, the elective process is normally considered due process, at least for any matter that is subject to the elective process (as amending a constitution is).However, there is a doctrine that has developed under Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence called "Substantive Due Process." Simply stated, under Substantive Due Process, there are some things that are so fundamental to freedom that they cannot be infringed upon, regardless of the process that is used. Several Supreme Court opinions have held that the right to marry is such a fundamental right, including the Loving Court.Thus, there are in fact two different bases for striking anti-gay marriage statutes; the Equal Protection Clause and the Substantive Due Process doctrine.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat