This is a fair lawsuit that has been talked about since back in May when the CA Court decision came out. It's a fair question for a court to decide whether a legislative proposition can be used in this situation or whether this change needs to be to the state constitution. It's not a surprise to anyone, really, that the opponents of Prop 8 were going to challenge the legitimacy of the proposition itself as the way to make this change.
California voter propositions are essentially just legislation voted on by the people instead of the state legislature. But you can't just pass legislation to void a constitutional equal protection right, which is what the CA court based its decision on.
I just find it odd. I have no dog in the fight in this particular case because I don't have a problem with whatever that state decides.
But if the vast majority of people are opposed to gay marriage amendments (and I'm not familiar with the exact wording of prop 8 except that it would disallow those gays already married) ... shouldn't that majority's rule be respected?
The issue is that this never should have been up for a vote in the first place. It's like voting on whether schools should be segregated or whether women should be allowed to vote.
And if you think gays and lesbians (or those of us who support them) are just going to sit down and accept their status as second-class citizens, even after something like this, you are sorely mistaken. The silver lining of this vote was the statistics showing the ages of the people who voted yes--mostly old and dying off. Fifty years from now, gay marriage will be as commonplace as racial intermarriage is now, and we'll look back on this time with the same mix of shame and pride with which we look back at the 60's now.
In response to your comment the answer is "no" it shouldn't be. No more than if the majority said *you* aren't allowed to get married or vote or exercise any of your other rights. There are parts of the consitution (specifically the equal protection clause) that were put in specificially to protect minority rights from this kind of majority vote.
(And sorry if my tone is coming through as overly harsh on this--it's hard for me to tone it back when it's something I feel so strongly about.)
I don't think anyone is going to sit down and take anything. I don't even think they should. I just think its hypocritical to say democracy works when people are voting the way you want them to, but than it doesn't when people vote the other way.
It seems to me that what they are missing is a piece of paper that legitimizes there relationship. And they don't really have a right to that. I don't have a right to that. The state takes an interest in whom I'm married to not because of my sexual orientation, but because of the children that we might produce.
And Most companies now don't have benefits for "spouses" they have benefits for "partners." And even when lewis and I weren't married, I was allowed to be on his insurance as his domestic partner. And this is on a big fortune 200 (100? not sure) company. And even my old company allowed this. For almost a year I had insurance through his organization.
And like I said, the only reason governments get involved in marriages to begin with is they propogate the species and create the next generation of tax payers. Marriage is encouraged for this reason (and the economic stability it provides, etc). And at the current rate that Americans are reproducing ... well we'll have a lot of problems in 50 years.
I'm all about allowing the fight to continue ... I just think the will of the people should be respected. And something to think about ... many of the people that voted for this proposition also voted for Barack Obama. So it's not just all right wing crazies.
Just one thing on the link you posted ... his argument that if this prop stands whats to stop people from repealing segregation, etc ... that's no different than the rights argument that this will lead to people marrying pigs or cows or will legalize polygamy.
The slippery slope argument, if utilized, should go both ways. I find both arguments ridiculous. Obviously you can't marry a snake. I do have more hesitation on the polygamy thing ... because Utah has taken a keen interest in the gay marriage debate and sponsors a lot of it because they think it's a window opening for them and fundamental mormonism.
Either way. Like I said, I don't hae a dog in the fight. And typically I'm all about getting the government out of stuff they don't belong in. If the prop breaks consitutional law it'll go up through the courts and be shot down.
I say let them get married and let them get divorced. Laywers will love it. ;) teasing, teasing.
But the will of the people don't control over a constitutional right. In those situations, the majority does not rule. And I would argue that when we do attempt to use majority rule to strip the minority of constitutional rights that have been recognized, OUR democracy has not worked. The US system of democracy is supposed to protect against that.
But there isn't a consitutional right to marriage, as defined by the church. And it seems to me what they want is marriage as it's been defined by the church. There have been studies that show people would support civil unions. Which, really is just a government word for marriage. But they don't want that. They want marriage. Which is a social term, not a government term. (And I hate using they, it sounds like us versus them ... but I hope you know what I meant).
And I think if you're going to write legislation on this issue, it should decided by the people and not by the courts.
Marriage is most definitely a government term. Government uses the term. A government can't authorize marriage for straight people but civil unions for gays. That would violate Brown v. Board of Education. Separate is inherently unequal.
The governmentally-recognized institution of marriage is NOT the same thing as the church institution. How the state defines marriage does not in any way, shape, or form affect what individual churches do.
If the state wants to provide civil unions, then that's the term the state needs to apply to ALL relationships, but you can't call the governmentally-recognized institution one thing for one group of people and something else for another.
And the people just don't get to decide to discriminate and have it be ok because more than 50% agreed. What if the people decided to take the right to vote away from gays? Even if 60% of the public voted in favor of that proposition, it would still be unconstitutional.
They want a marriage as it's been defined by the state. Which I think leads us back to the real problem with all of this--that the state issues marriages in the first place.
I think what makes the most sense logically is for everyone to have civil unions. Then if you want to get married in a church also, that's great.
Further, I actually have no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is of age and consenting. Although I think basic human instincts like jealously would keep it rare, I can see great advantages in a communal living system.
Lastly, I have to take on this idea that marriage is just about making babies. If that's the case, why are you married?
Here we go again ... well what if they decide to let people marry their pets?
You can't win this argument that way. No more what ifs.
There is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage, that's what I'm saying. Yes there have been tax codes and other things written up to use the term, but there is no inherent right to marriage that is in the constitution.
I stand by my original point that legislation needs to be decided by the people, and not the courts.
The whole animals argument is just silly. Animals can't consent to marriage, there's a fundamental difference.
And you're right, there is no constitutional right to marriage. But there IS a constitutional right not to non-discrimination--14th Amendment, equal protection clause.
I didn't intend for my question to be rude, so let's reverse it--why am *I* married? Why is anyone married who doesn't want to/cannot have children?
I think the "go back to segregation" argument is silly too.
I don't know why you got married. Or why anyone else got married. Statistically, at least in prior years, marriage resulted in children, which is why governments encouraged marriage as a means to secure a future tax base.
I deleted my previous comment as I reacted too quickly. But I get a lot of assumptions made about me because I'm of a certain age and without children. And especially as regards children, one should never assume anything.
the invocation of segregation issues isn't silly, it's illustrative of what types of decisions simply cannot be left up to majority rule. The majority of the public would pass an awful lot of laws that would violate the constitution.
And, no, the constitution says nothing about marriage but it does say equal protection which is what this issue is all about.
Comments
California voter propositions are essentially just legislation voted on by the people instead of the state legislature. But you can't just pass legislation to void a constitutional equal protection right, which is what the CA court based its decision on.
But if the vast majority of people are opposed to gay marriage amendments (and I'm not familiar with the exact wording of prop 8 except that it would disallow those gays already married) ... shouldn't that majority's rule be respected?
And if you think gays and lesbians (or those of us who support them) are just going to sit down and accept their status as second-class citizens, even after something like this, you are sorely mistaken. The silver lining of this vote was the statistics showing the ages of the people who voted yes--mostly old and dying off. Fifty years from now, gay marriage will be as commonplace as racial intermarriage is now, and we'll look back on this time with the same mix of shame and pride with which we look back at the 60's now.
(And sorry if my tone is coming through as overly harsh on this--it's hard for me to tone it back when it's something I feel so strongly about.)
It seems to me that what they are missing is a piece of paper that legitimizes there relationship. And they don't really have a right to that. I don't have a right to that. The state takes an interest in whom I'm married to not because of my sexual orientation, but because of the children that we might produce.
And Most companies now don't have benefits for "spouses" they have benefits for "partners." And even when lewis and I weren't married, I was allowed to be on his insurance as his domestic partner. And this is on a big fortune 200 (100? not sure) company. And even my old company allowed this. For almost a year I had insurance through his organization.
And like I said, the only reason governments get involved in marriages to begin with is they propogate the species and create the next generation of tax payers. Marriage is encouraged for this reason (and the economic stability it provides, etc). And at the current rate that Americans are reproducing ... well we'll have a lot of problems in 50 years.
I'm all about allowing the fight to continue ... I just think the will of the people should be respected. And something to think about ... many of the people that voted for this proposition also voted for Barack Obama. So it's not just all right wing crazies.
The slippery slope argument, if utilized, should go both ways. I find both arguments ridiculous. Obviously you can't marry a snake. I do have more hesitation on the polygamy thing ... because Utah has taken a keen interest in the gay marriage debate and sponsors a lot of it because they think it's a window opening for them and fundamental mormonism.
Either way. Like I said, I don't hae a dog in the fight. And typically I'm all about getting the government out of stuff they don't belong in. If the prop breaks consitutional law it'll go up through the courts and be shot down.
I say let them get married and let them get divorced. Laywers will love it. ;) teasing, teasing.
And I think if you're going to write legislation on this issue, it should decided by the people and not by the courts.
The governmentally-recognized institution of marriage is NOT the same thing as the church institution. How the state defines marriage does not in any way, shape, or form affect what individual churches do.
If the state wants to provide civil unions, then that's the term the state needs to apply to ALL relationships, but you can't call the governmentally-recognized institution one thing for one group of people and something else for another.
And the people just don't get to decide to discriminate and have it be ok because more than 50% agreed. What if the people decided to take the right to vote away from gays? Even if 60% of the public voted in favor of that proposition, it would still be unconstitutional.
I think what makes the most sense logically is for everyone to have civil unions. Then if you want to get married in a church also, that's great.
Further, I actually have no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is of age and consenting. Although I think basic human instincts like jealously would keep it rare, I can see great advantages in a communal living system.
Lastly, I have to take on this idea that marriage is just about making babies. If that's the case, why are you married?
You can't win this argument that way. No more what ifs.
There is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage, that's what I'm saying. Yes there have been tax codes and other things written up to use the term, but there is no inherent right to marriage that is in the constitution.
I stand by my original point that legislation needs to be decided by the people, and not the courts.
And you're right, there is no constitutional right to marriage. But there IS a constitutional right not to non-discrimination--14th Amendment, equal protection clause.
I didn't intend for my question to be rude, so let's reverse it--why am *I* married? Why is anyone married who doesn't want to/cannot have children?
I don't know why you got married. Or why anyone else got married. Statistically, at least in prior years, marriage resulted in children, which is why governments encouraged marriage as a means to secure a future tax base.
I deleted my previous comment as I reacted too quickly. But I get a lot of assumptions made about me because I'm of a certain age and without children. And especially as regards children, one should never assume anything.
And, no, the constitution says nothing about marriage but it does say equal protection which is what this issue is all about.