So... About That Step Forward

[Telefrog]

Proposition 8. Seriously (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)? WTF California?

[Menzo]

Well, on the bright side, it's at least a half step forward.

Vote was 60% for banning gay marriage last time. It's a little bit closer this time, but still a disgrace.

[WarrenM]

Yeah, ridiculous. Still so much bigotry to overcome in this country.

[bago]

Aint it great?

[Jeff Green]

Yeah. A sad blight on an otherwise great day here in California.

(Well, Bachman winning again was also appalling.)

[WarrenM]

(Well, Bachman winning again was also appalling.)
WTF, seriously? Was her opponent that hopelessly incompetent?

[Lh'owon]

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

It's a damn shame.

[Brian Rubin]

Proposition 8. Seriously (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)? WTF California?
Don't look at me, *I* voted against it...

[PeterGinsberg]

Obama's coat tails don't necessarily help stop prop 8.

Black voters tend to favor the ban (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-e.html).

[charmtrap]

Dan Savage is pissed (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homophobia) about it.



I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.


It will be worth it if Prop 8 provokes a discussion in the black community about their rampant homophobia. Maybe at least some recognition of the ironies involved.

[Jason McCullough]

WTF, seriously? Was her opponent that hopelessly incompetent?

It's a R+5 district, she said it late, and her opponent only got a pile of cash at the end. Can't win 'em all.

[NowhereDan]

I'm almost sad I'm in San Francisco, because it makes it hard to find a Prop 8 supporter to berate. On the other hand, here I don't have to put up with many Prop 8 supporters. (Still, according to CNN's numbers about 55,000 San Franciscans voted for it. Who the hell are these people?)

[Balsamic]

Ironies, if blacks had split down the middle list most demographics the prop would have failed. If their turn out had matched their population as it typically does (6% as opposed to the 10%) it very probably would have wound up too close to call.

I'm sort of bouncing back and forth on whether this is significant at all. One thing is for sure, Obama should have cut a fucking no on 8 ad.

[RepoMan]

Obama had bigger fish to fry. Sorry, but it's true. And I say this as a resident of San Franciso for 12 years, and the extended bay area for 18.

[jerri blank]

As I've posted elsewhere, what happens in California probably won't last either way. The Supremes are eventually going to have to decide this for everyone.

[LesJarvis]

As I've posted elsewhere, what happens in California probably won't last either way. The Supremes are eventually going to have to decide this for everyone.

I'm glad you're optimistic, because I'm sitting on a well of negative emotion in regards to the results of Prop 8. I haven't said much about it because it's hard for me to talk about without devolving into invective and sarcasm. I really hope you're right.

[Thrag]

WTF, seriously? Was her opponent that hopelessly incompetent?

Gerrymandering. It's why the incumbency rate in the house is so high. You carefully define the border of your district to include only those demographics that are likely to vote for you.

[Lux]

For whatever it's worth there is some serious turbulance going on in the Los Angeles entertainment sector where openly G/L/B folks have some serious power and money. Good for them if they show California that bigotry can have financial repurcussions, even if it makes my combing for freelance work even harder than it already is.

[Balsamic]

You know, regardless of whether or not it would end up being settled in the courts, the real damage was done by the vote itself. Gay Californians have just had a right stripped from them by their fellow Californians and that, I imagine, is a pretty severe wound.

I find it to be pretty demoralizing.

[MikeSofaer]

The Supremes are eventually going to have to decide this for everyone.
They shouldn't have to. You can argue 14th, I guess, but in the end this is the sort of thing the people get to decide.

And apparently my state has decided it likes bigotry. I hope and expect a repeal in 8 years or so, when a few more people grow an empathon.

[charmtrap]

OTOH, toss around all the invective you like about bigoted Californians, but gays didn't exactly help themselves. Donations were next to nothing until the last few weeks when it looked like they might actually lose, and the No campaign still had to beg and plead for money. If this fight were so important, you'd think there would have been serious organizing going on since Prop 8 made the ballot.

I think that the pro-gay marriage side were living a fantasy world, convinced there was no way they could lose in liberal-land. Hopefully next time they'll take these challenges more seriously.

[Hanacker]

I was worried we had entered a post-racial America, but at least this gives us something new to dislike blacks about. Conservatives can continue disliking blacks for always voting Democrat, and liberals can dislike them for always voting against gay marriage. Yay!

[Ridah]

I'm almost sad I'm in San Francisco, because it makes it hard to find a Prop 8 supporter to berate. On the other hand, here I don't have to put up with many Prop 8 supporters. (Still, according to CNN's numbers about 55,000 San Franciscans voted for it. Who the hell are these people?)

Umm... People who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman perhaps? Not saying that's MY stance, personally I didn't vote for the prop because I don't have an opinion on the subject (or in other words, it's simply none of my business since it doesn't affect me personally). However, I know plenty of people who believe strongly in traditional marriage*.

*And they don't hate homosexuals

[Hugin]

*And they don't hate homosexuals

Actually, I think they do. I think they hate them enough to vote to deny them the right to marry, an act which would harm marriage in general or other people married in specific not at all. I have no more patience for such people than I do those who were against interracial marriage. And as an African American proud and happy about the Presidential vote yesterday, I'm sick and ashamed of my community's homophobia, which is, as a lovely side effect, continuing to help get us killed when it comes to HIV prevention.

[Kelly Wand]

I thought Mormons loved marriage.

[Jeff Green]

Actually, I think they do. I think they hate them enough to vote to deny them the right to marry, an act which would harm marriage in general or other people married in specific not at all.

Agreed. I believe this is a measure driven by hate. And fear. If they really didn't give a shit--as they shouldn't--this proposition wouldn't have been on the ballot at all.

[rhinohelix]

Agreed. I believe this is a measure driven by hate. And fear. If they really didn't give a shit--as they shouldn't--this proposition wouldn't have been on the ballot at all.

Could there not be any other reason for someone to vote this way? Or in your world, is there only the black and white of "believe in gay marriage" or "hater and fearful"?

[MattKeil]

Umm... People who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman perhaps? Not saying that's MY stance, personally I didn't vote for the prop because I don't have an opinion on the subject (or in other words, it's simply none of my business since it doesn't affect me personally). However, I know plenty of people who believe strongly in traditional marriage*.

*And they don't hate homosexuals

Yes, they do. The only reason to support a ban against another person's rights is because you hate them, in my opinion. Whether or not men are marrying men or women are marrying women has no impact whatsoever on any of the marriages of those who voted for Prop 8. It is a non-issue, solely based on religion-propagated intolerance, and will be struck down as federally unconstitutional in time, because that's exactly what it is. It shouldn't even have been on the ballot to begin with, but Utah Mormons threw money at the "cause" like it was going out of style. This brings up another question of whether out-of-state funding should be legal for such things, particularly when it comes to amending another state's constitution.

That's a big one, by the way. California's constitution is now rewritten. This marks the first time in US history a state's constitution has been altered to revoke rights from its people. Bigoted, fearful, tiny-minded people have spoken loud and clear, and they have said that they want a sizable chunk of their fellow Americans to be second-class citizens. It is absolutely disgraceful.

[Jeff Green]

Could there not be any other reason for someone to vote this way? Or in your world, is there only the black and white of "believe in gay marriage" or "hater and fearful"?

You tell me. I don't know why anyone would give a shit who marries who. And why they give so much of a shit that they feel the need to ban people from doing it.

So you tell me.

[Tom Chick]

Yes, they do. The only reason to support a ban against another person's rights is because you hate them, in my opinion.

It's pretty arrogant of you to believe your opinion is sufficient cause to determine someone else's motives. There are plenty of reasons people supported Proposition 8. The reasons include -- but are no means limited to -- religion, culture, ignorance, and insecurity. I suspect the most common reason is a sort of traditional conservatism combined with having no perspective on the issue: "I like the way things are and I want to keep them that way, and since I don't know any openly gay folks, it's easy for me to vote this way. Plus, isn't Gavin Newsom annoying."

Also, it's pretty short-sighted to look at Proposition 8 as "banning another person's rights". Consider this perspective: gay men and women have the same right to marry as heterosexual men and women. As a straight dude, I don't have the right to marry another dude either. Until the right for two consenting adults to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage is legally extended*, it can't be taken away.

If you people really want to understand the issue and do something other than screech about it, you need to stop demonizing the other side.

-Tom

* Which I feel it should be. I strongly oppose Prop. 8.

[Hugin]

Could there not be any other reason for someone to vote this way? Or in your world, is there only the black and white of "believe in gay marriage" or "hater and fearful"?

Yeah, there's the nice middle ground of "The marriage of two consenting adults is none of my business, even if I don't approve of the lifestyle of the people involved or the particular combination of consenting adults who decided they wanted to marry. Man, I'll never do that!"

You don't have to believe in anything except the basic human rights of people who are different from yourself.

[Balsamic]

Also, it's pretty short-sighted to look at Proposition 8 as "banning another person's rights". Consider this perspective: gay men and women have the same right to marry as heterosexual men and women. As a straight dude, I don't have the right to marry another dude either. Until the right for two consenting adults to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage is legally extended*, it can't be taken away.

I've heard this argument before during the federal amendment battle and, quite frankly, you're the one being short sighted. It breaks down quickly when you apply it to any number of other life style choices. If we ban Christianity we can just as easily argue that Christians have the same right to practice any of the other sanctioned faiths as anyone else.

In this case it's particularly egregious since the initiating court ruling established marriage as a right, and the ballot measure itself was headlined "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry".

Does not compute.

[Tom Chick]

Fair point, Balsamic, if there is indeed a constitutional amendment for gays to marry. I had no idea there was any such creature. I thought Prop.8 was simply pre-emptive. But it doesn't negate what I was saying: with or without Prop. 8, a gay man has the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual man.

Your Christianity analogy is bollocks, however. I seem to recall the Constitution does indeed protect your right to worship how you choose. It's pretty near the top, I think.

-Tom

[Hugin]

Fair point, Balsamic, if there is indeed a constitutional amendment for gays to marry. I had no idea there was any such creature. I thought Prop.8 was simply pre-emptive. But it doesn't negate what I was saying: with or without Prop. 8, a gay man has the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual man.

Your Christianity analogy is bollocks, however. I seem to recall the Constitution does indeed protect your right to worship how you choose. It's pretty near the top, I think.

-Tom

Tom, the argument that the CA Supreme Court made in their ruling was that not allowing gays to marry was a violation of the equality/equal protection language built into the CA constitution.

Considering the number of evangelicals that feel "freedom of religion" in the US means "freedom to be a Christian", I think the parallel is apt.

[Tom Chick]

Ah, so it's a court ruling. And who wins in a battle between a CA Supreme Court ruling and a constitutional amendment? I think I found out the answer last night. :(

Look, I'm not here to argue on behalf of Proposition 8. On the contrary, I'm arguing against dismissing support for it as simple "hate". I'll bet you dollars to donuts this one will be coming around again, and one of the first steps in beating the prevailing attitude is to understand it, and to consider why Prop. 8 got so much support. I've been pretty flabbergasted all along that it was as close as it was, and I was dismayed to see it pass last night.

Also, freedom of religion doesn't encompass freedom to be a Christian? Huh?

-Tom

[hong]

"You're free to choose any religion you want, as long as you're a Christian" -- Henry Ford, paraphrased

[Lizard_King]

Also, freedom of religion doesn't encompass freedom to be a Christian? Huh?

He means that in America religious freedom is often interpreted by those who benefit the most from it as "the ability to choose your favorite brand of Christianity", with all of the other groups being political lepers. Hell, even controversial Christian offshoots have a relatively tough time.

[Balsamic]

I'm in agreement that the reduction of the motives of the yes crowd to "hate" is a bad way to go.

I disagree with your assessment of whether or not the yes on 8 effectively striped gays of one of their rights.

It did. Constitutional amendment does trump court ruling, but the ruling preceded the amendment and hence the right was established (or more appropriately, recognized since it was theoretically in existence before the ruling), and then taken away.

What rights the constitution guarantees has no bearing on the inherit unfairness of criminalizing a specific life style choice. I think it's bunk to argue that it's fair just because everyone else has to abide by that decision as well. The clear difference is that one group gets to live their lifestyle of choice and the other is forced to conform against their will.

I suspect the fact that you brought up the first amendment might mean we are operating on different definitions of "rights".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Theoretical_distinctions

[Tom Chick]

I suspect the fact that you brought up the banning of Christianity (!) might mean we are operating on different degrees of righteous indignation.

However, I'm afraid I don't have pithy Wikipedia link for you.

-Tom

P.S. And my original point remains. Technically speaking, a gay man has the same rights to marriage as a straight man. You might disagree with how or whether this applies to the issue, but it's worth considering when we wonder how so many people can support Prop. 8.

[Hugin]

Ah, so it's a court ruling. And who wins in a battle between a CA Supreme Court ruling and a constitutional amendment? I think I found out the answer last night. :(

Look, I'm not here to argue on behalf of Proposition 8. On the contrary, I'm arguing against dismissing support for it as simple "hate". I'll bet you dollars to donuts this one will be coming around again, and one of the first steps in beating the prevailing attitude is to understand it, and to consider why Prop. 8 got so much support. I've been pretty flabbergasted all along that it was as close as it was, and I was dismayed to see it pass last night.

Also, freedom of religion doesn't encompass freedom to be a Christian? Huh?

-Tom

Prop 8 got so much support because

1. Middle class and working class African Americans and Latinos are relatively culturally conservative, including relatively high levels of homophobia. There are a lot of both groups in CA and an unusually high number of them came out for Obama. African Americans especially voted in favor of prop 8 by a large margin.

2. The Mormon church pumped gigantic amounts of money into California to support it.

There are other factors but those are the big two.

As far as the legal fight goes, the idea is that changing the wording of the CA constitution is a hell of a lot harder than simply amending it, and to make Prop 8 constitutional you need to actually re-write the equal protection sections as they currently exist, you can't just tack "*except for gays" at the end.

We went through all this shit in Massachusetts, in terms of the "will of the people" vs "activist judges" stuff, and eventually there was a multi-year legislative solution (death by a thousand parliamentary tactics while cobbling together a pro-equal rights legislative majority) that I suspect will be close to the model for how CA goes down.

Fundamentally, putting civil rights stuff up for voter referendum is a bad idea. Most of the major civil rights rulings from a half century ago would have lost had they been left up to the will of the majority racist mobs at the time.

[Balsamic]

I picked Christianity because it's an easy example of a law clearly targeted towards a group of people but still technically "fair". It also has the added benefit of being obviously wrong. Replace it with whatever easily defined group of people you want if you'd like.

As I said above, you're talking about legal rights and I'm talking about natural rights. Your point is valid with your frame, and I think my point is valid with mine.

[Hugin]

Technically speaking, a gay man has the same rights to marriage as a straight man. .

No, I can't agree with this. Your assertion only holds if we agree that marriage by definition requires an opposite sex pairing and the desires of the people seeking to make the marriage contract are irrelevant. I believe the "right" to marry must include a component of choice, or...fulfillment of happiness, a true desire for the partnership, on the part of the participants.

Otherwise an arranged marriage between a man and a woman who do not love or like or even know each other could be deemed more valid and desirable by the state than a marriage between two men or two women who have a legitimate, potentially lifelong emotional bond. I think this is an untenable, given we live in a first-world, western, non-medieval society where one partner is theoretically not just breeding material or chattel for the other.

I mean, if the people of CA decided to make a constitutional amendment that only pork and shellfish would be allowed as meat products to be sold or imported, observant Jews in CA would have the same "right" to eat as anyone else, right?

[Ridah]

Realistically what everyone who voted Yes on Prop 8 fears is that eventually everyone will become gay and quit procreating which will lead to the end of the human race. =)

The way I see it, our core human instinct is survival and the primary method of survival as a race is to procreate. So, naturally, we want to protect and promote something such as (traditional) marriage which institutes procreation. I don't HATE homosexuals, I had two gay managers back in the day who I thought were awesome people and I would not hesitate to call them friends. However, I don't believe two creatures, whether it be two men, two women, a dog and a man, a woman and a dog, whatever, should seek state recognition of their unity simply because they are in "love". I believe love is simply a human survival tool designed to keep two partners together long enough to procreate and protect their children. Hence, seeing as how a homosexual partnership is not compatible with procreation, it isn't in need of any sort of state protection or recognition.

HOWEVER, I'm not gay, I don't know what it's like to be gay, I don't know what a gay person feels emotionally, so I'm biased.

That's why, ultimately, I'm not for OR against gay marraige and thus opted not to vote for Prop 8 whatsoever. The more people who are happy on this planet, the better though.

[Ben Sones]

Your Christianity analogy is bollocks, however. I seem to recall the Constitution does indeed protect your right to worship how you choose. It's pretty near the top, I think.

The Constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law, though, and I think one can make a pretty strong argument that a ban against gay marriage violates that principle.


Also, it's pretty short-sighted to look at Proposition 8 as "banning another person's rights". Consider this perspective: gay men and women have the same right to marry as heterosexual men and women. As a straight dude, I don't have the right to marry another dude either. Until the right for two consenting adults to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage is legally extended*, it can't be taken away.

While I'd agree that Balsamic's religion analogy also violates the First Amendment, I think it also serves as a fair rebuttal of this particular argument. Consider this: if California were to ban Christianity, the fact that a Muslim might say "Well, it's actually fair, because I can't practice Christianity under the law, either, so a Christian has the same rights as me" isn't a compelling justification for the fairness of the law. The Muslim has no desire to practice Christianity, so I think you are framing the issue disingenuously by suggesting that this law has the same effect on him as it would on a Christian. The real issue is not that you are taking away everyone's right to practice Christianity, but rather that you are taking away some people's right to practice the religion of their choice. In such a situation, the onus is on the government to provide a sound justification for why people who want to practice Christianity can rightly be treated differently under the law than people who want to practice other religions.

Likewise, with gay marriage, the argument that straight people can't marry other straight people of the same sex is essentially irrelevant--and somewhat capricious--because straight people do not want to marry people of the same sex. The real issue is that the law is allowing one group of people to marry the partner of their choice, but not allowing another group of people to do the same. As with the example above, the onus is on the government to justify why the one group of people can rightly be treated differently than the other.

At that point, I think that gay marriage bans become very difficult to defend, because personally, I have never heard a rational argument for why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, which is probably why opponents of gay marriage are always trying to frame the debate in the reverse of those terms (i.e. "Why should gay people be given the right to marry?"). But rights are not something granted out of government largesse; all rights belong to the people naturally, and it is the government that must provide justification for limiting them or taking them away. That's also in the Constitution. Pretty near the top, I think.

[Aeon221]

But rights are not something granted out of government largesse; all rights belong to the people naturally, and it is the government that must provide justification for limiting them or taking them away. That's also in the Constitution. Pretty near the top, I think.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words, We the People only have guaranteed access to the rights declared in the Constitutions of the Federal Gov't and the State Gov't in which we reside. While the Feds only have the ability to utilize powers specifically granted them in the Fed Constitution, State Gov'ts have any powers that they have not specifically forfeited in their own Constitutions, all of which are modifiable according to their several procedures, or which accrue to the Feds.

So, in point of fact, rights are indeed something granted by (state) government largesse, and can, essentially, be modified at a whim.



Technically speaking, a gay man has the same rights to marriage as a straight man.

Yes, both groups have the right to remain silent. Anything they say can and will be used against them.

[Balsamic]

So, in point of fact, rights are indeed something granted by (state) government largesse, and which can, essentially, be modified at a whim.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm no lawyer but I always understood this one as essentially establishing that some rights are inherent even if not specifically guaranteed. Basically putting forth the idea that there should be a good reason for limiting any of those rights not specifically relying on the argument that they aren't guaranteed in the constitution. A right doesn't have to be enumerated for the courts to consider it a right, thereby protecting the people from those whims you mentioned.

This interpretation is highly controversial, but has been used by judges to decide a few landmark cases, you know, like Roe v. Wade.

[MattKeil]

Look, I'm not here to argue on behalf of Proposition 8. On the contrary, I'm arguing against dismissing support for it as simple "hate". I'll bet you dollars to donuts this one will be coming around again, and one of the first steps in beating the prevailing attitude is to understand it, and to consider why Prop. 8 got so much support.

Sorry, but it boils down to "hate" and/or "fear" in the end. Yes, the key to defeating Prop 8 and its repercussions is to analyze the reasons behind those things, but those things are indeed what's happening. It's a simplification, yes, but it's not wrong.


It's pretty arrogant of you to believe your opinion is sufficient cause to determine someone else's motives.

Yes, I know everyone is a beautiful snowflake, but I have several friends who were literally in tears this morning because they don't know if they'll still be married in a few months, and I'm not all that charitable right now. I'm not too worried about how people who would do that to another person or condone their motives view my level of arrogance, thanks. Besides, I'm still a few light years behind someone who thinks their opinion on someone's sex life gives them the right to vote on who's allowed to marry whom.

[Euri]

Sorry, but it boils down to "hate" and/or "fear" in the end. Yes, the key to defeating Prop 8 and its repercussions is to analyze the reasons behind those things, but those things are indeed what's happening. It's a simplification, yes, but it's not wrong.



Yes, I know everyone is a beautiful snowflake, but I have several friends who were literally in tears this morning because they don't know if they'll still be married in a few months, and I'm not all that charitable right now. I'm not too worried about how people who would do that to another person or condone their motives view my level of arrogance, thanks. Besides, I'm still a few light years behind someone who thinks their opinion on someone's sex life gives them the right to vote on who's allowed to marry whom.

We know this to be true simply because you cannot reasonably articulate any argument against gay marriage that makes any sense historically, socially, or legally that makes any sense. Those that try, without exception, are lying outright or lying to themselves to cover up their own bigotry. It is hate, it is fear, and it is what society does.

[Tom Chick]

Likewise, with gay marriage, the argument that straight people can't marry other straight people of the same sex is essentially irrelevant--and somewhat capricious--because straight people do not want to marry people of the same sex.

Well, as I believe Plato once said, "duh".

But it doesn't invalidate the argument. What's irrelevant is whether I want to marry a dude or a chick. Only one of those is legally recognized in California right now and it has nothing to do with which one I want to do. I don't get special dispensation because I do or don't want to do something. I have no desire to murder someone, yet the laws against murder still apply to me. (How's that for a bad analogy?)

Look, I don't buy the argument myself, and I've said, I support the institutionalization of gay marriage. I'm just pointing out that people are capable of supporting Proposition 8 without being the sort of hateful or fearful boogeymen Matt Keil pierces with his keen psychoanalytic insight. There are people who oppose gay marriage in good faith, out of a lack of perspective, out of ignorance, out of traditional cultural values, or even just for the ick factor.

But when you ascribe to them hate or fear, not only do you distort the issue, you weaken the power of those words, which belong in very definite situations (particularly "hate", which gets thrown around all too often as a badge of righteous indignation).


It's a simplification

Well, at least you got that part right.

-Tom

[Anders Hallin]

Prop 8 got so much support because

1. Middle class and working class African Americans and Latinos are relatively culturally conservative, including relatively high levels of homophobia. There are a lot of both groups in CA and an unusually high number of them came out for Obama. African Americans especially voted in favor of prop 8 by a large margin.
This is a bit too simplistic an answer. African-Americans were some 7 percentage points of the Yes-vote. A wake-up call to the African-American community and the HBTQ community to engage them, certainly, but to use it as THE reason, given that the initiative came from other groups, was funded by other groups and got a majority of its vote from other groups?

[Aeon221]

I'm no lawyer but I always understood this one as essentially establishing that some rights are inherent even if not specifically guaranteed. Basically putting forth the idea that there should be a good reason for limiting any of those rights not specifically relying on the argument that they aren't guaranteed in the constitution. A right doesn't have to be enumerated for the courts to consider it a right, thereby protecting the people from those whims you mentioned.

This interpretation is highly controversial, but has been used by judges to decide a few landmark cases, you know, like Roe v. Wade.

That debate has been raging since the writing of the Federal Constitution, and it's the primary reason the Bill of Rights was included.

But the language of Amendment X is pretty clear. Rights not accruing to the Federal Gov't devolve to the States and the People. You'd have to check your state constitution to see which rights belong to you, and which rights belong to your state gov't, all of which are subject to change at the will of elected officials should they choose to pursue an amendment. But that state constitution is where the bulk (or remainder, depending on how you think of it) of your rights are determined.

[NowhereDan]

Look, I don't buy the argument myself, and I've said, I support the institutionalization of gay marriage. I'm just pointing out that people are capable of supporting Proposition 8 without being the sort of hateful or fearful boogeymen Matt Keil pierces with his keen psychoanalytic insight. There are people who oppose gay marriage in good faith, out of a lack of perspective, out of ignorance, out of traditional cultural values, or even just for the ick factor.

But when you ascribe to them hate or fear, not only do you distort the issue, you weaken the power of those words, which belong in very definite situations (particularly "hate", which gets thrown around all too often as a badge of righteous indignation).

I dunno, Tom... while I understand the argument that banning gay marriage isn't unfair because they're not allowing straight people to marry partners of the same sex either, the argument is so weak that the only way I can imagine anyone actually using it with a straight face is if they've rationalized it through their own hate and/or fear of homosexuals. Also, hate and/or fear of homosexuals is a traditional value of some cultures. That's no excuse in my book - institutionalized hate doesn't make it anything other than hate.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

So, can gay Californians enter some manner of legal partnership with the same legal rights and economic benefits as traditional, Christian marriage? If it's "just" about Christian marriage, then I have to wonder why homosexuals would want to get married in a church anyway, seeing as many of them consider homosexuality a disease to be treated.

If there's no alternative, the whole thing starts stinking a lot more since no partnership and no marriage means gay people are actively discouraged from entering long-term relationships with shared possessions like houses and cars. Is that the case?

[Hanacker]

The majority of people who voted for Prop 8 don't hate or fear homosexuals, unless you want to twist the usage of those words such to make them almost meaningless. There's a big leap from uncomfortable with/ignorant about homosexuality to hate and fear. You could argue that they're generally being led by those who hate and/or fear homosexuals, but when you start saying that everyone who voted against for Prop 8 is full of hate and fear I'm not getting in that boat.

[Brendan]

Can gay folks still enter into what we here call a "civil union" and be afforded the same legal rights as straight married couples? Is it just the term "marriage" which this bill covers?

[Brendan]

Also, apathy does not equal hate or fear.

[Tom Chick]

My understanding (and I haven't so much as Wikied this, so someone else should jump in here and correct me if I'm off) is that civil unions extend almost all the same legal benefits as marriage in California. Among the gaps are certain proceedings having to do with divorce, where the legalese of marriage doesn't apply.

That said, the question is an important one for reasons other than divorce proceedings. For the sake of equal opportunity, gay couples deserve the same legal recognition as straight couples.

-Tom

[Kelly Wand]

Actors who play gay men on TV shouldn't have rights either. I don't want them teaching rights to my kids.

[Ben Sones]

In other words, We the People only have guaranteed access to the rights declared in the Constitutions of the Federal Gov't and the State Gov't in which we reside. While the Feds only have the ability to utilize powers specifically granted them in the Fed Constitution, State Gov'ts have any powers that they have not specifically forfeited in their own Constitutions, all of which are modifiable according to their several procedures, or which accrue to the Feds.

So, in point of fact, rights are indeed something granted by (state) government largesse, and can, essentially, be modified at a whim.

That is an interesting interpretation of the tenth Amendment that is, AFAIK, at odds with pretty much all past legal interpretation. In fact, that is almost exactly the opposite of what that Amendment has been understood to mean. For one thing, the Amendment just above that one reads:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the US Supreme court has consistently interpreted the protection against the infringement on reserved rights also applies to the states, courtesy of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is to say, your reading of the tenth Amendment as saying that any non-enumerated power in the Federal Constitution is reserved for the states, but the people only get what the states specifically choose to give them, is wrong. From Griswold v. Connecticut (http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./381/479/):


While the Ninth Amendment—and indeed the entire Bill of Rights—originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

But going deeper than that, I think that your interpretation is wrong on a more fundamental level, even without the Fourteenth Amendment, because Madison, who was mainly responsible for that the ninth Amendment, argued for adding that Amendment specifically to prevent people from making the assumption that you wrote, above.


It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].

And while it was not explicitly stated until the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not believe that the intention of Madison (or the other framers) was to restrict the federal government's ability to infringe upon reserved rights merely so that the states could do so in its place.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, BTW, all of this is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that the right to equal protection IS enumerated there, with wording that explicitly prohibits any state from infringing upon it.


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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.


So in short, the California Constitution can suck it.

[Aeon221]

Eh? Equal protection isn't what I'm arguing about. My point was that rights derive from the States, which is pretty clear. Everything you've posted has agreed with that basic idea while expanding the rights protected from any gov't interference whatsoever.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Since we can assume that this does not contradict the language of Amdt X, it must mean that there are an unknown number of basic rights not demarcated in the Constitution that accrue only to the People, but that these rights do not constitute the totality of rights -- which is, in essence, the creation of a specific class of protected rights. Any other meaning invalidates Amdt X, which states quite clearly that rights not held by the Feds accrue to the (note the order of words both here and in the Amdt X) States and People.


While the Ninth Amendment—and indeed the entire Bill of Rights—originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement

"Fundamental Personal Liberties" is an undefined phrase upon which the meaning of the entire passage rests. I believe that this quotation from the above case most perfectly captures the meaning:


specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.

Again, there are certain rights that are protected by the Federal Gov't, which this case extends somewhat, but that doesn't change the language in Amdt X, which devolves all rights not accruing to the Federal Gov't to the various states and the populace residing within them. It doesn't formally change that assumption, it merely broadens the segment of rights protected from State interference.

Furthering that idea:


I do not take the position of my Brother Black in his dissent in Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 68, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1683, 91 L.Ed. 1903, that the entire Bill of Rights is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and I do not mean to imply that the Ninth Amendment is applied against the States by the Fourteenth. Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. As any student of this Court's opinions knows, this Court has held, often unanimously, that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain fundamental personal liberties from abridgment by the Federal Government or the States.

My original point, that ALL rights not declared protected by the Fed Constitution accrue to the States and People, is pretty clearly incorrect. So I'd like to moderate it a bit and say that the following more accurately depicts the situation:

All rights not expressly protected from the Federal Gov't accrue to the States and the People, excepting if they are guaranteed against governance by the States, in which case they accrue solely to the People.



***
By the way, this is tons of fun and has totally distracted me from the important business of studying for a Ren Hist exam.

[Ben Sones]

But it doesn't invalidate the argument. What's irrelevant is whether I want to marry a dude or a chick. Only one of those is legally recognized in California right now and it has nothing to do with which one I want to do. I don't get special dispensation because I do or don't want to do something. I have no desire to murder someone, yet the laws against murder still apply to me. (How's that for a bad analogy?)

It's pretty bad. Not to help your argument, but here's a better one: the law also prohibits you from marrying a child. So there is a highly similar example in which one group of people is prevented from marrying their partner of choice, just like a gay marriage ban. Right? But the difference is that in this case, the law does provide justification for why this situation should be treated differently (specifically, the argument that children lack the experience to competently make such a decision, and therefor cannot be considered willing participants).

And even though your murder analogy is awful, the same principle applies. laws against murder are just because the state can provide a compelling argument for why murder is bad, even though it involves treating one group of people (those who want to commit murder) differently from another (those who don't). So what is the compelling argument for why gay people should be treated differently under the law? Can you think of one? I can't.

And just to reiterate:


What's irrelevant is whether I want to marry a dude or a chick. Only one of those is legally recognized in California right now and it has nothing to do with which one I want to do.

It has everything to do with it, because one of the fundamental principles of liberty, as expressed by the Constitution, is that people should be free to do what they want unless there is a compelling reason to prevent them (as is the case in both murder and child-marrying). Going back to the religion analogy, the government is not committing a wrong against Christianity by restricting its worship--it is committing a wrong against the people's right to choose. The specific religion in question is tangential; the right of a person to do what they want is the issue that is actually at stake.


Look, I don't buy the argument myself, and I've said, I support the institutionalization of gay marriage. I'm just pointing out that people are capable of supporting Proposition 8 without being the sort of hateful or fearful boogeymen Matt Keil pierces with his keen psychoanalytic insight.

I understand where you are coming from, but I also sort of think you are wrong. I think that people that oppose gay marriage are like many of the people that supported Jim Crow--not necessarily spiteful or hateful people, and many of them probably didn't even consider themselves racists. But the simple fact is that they supported a deeply racist law, and I don't think you can wash their hands clean of that just by pointing out that some of them are otherwise nice people.


There are people who oppose gay marriage in good faith, out of a lack of perspective, out of ignorance, out of traditional cultural values, or even just for the ick factor.

But when you ascribe to them hate or fear, not only do you distort the issue, you weaken the power of those words, which belong in very definite situations (particularly "hate", which gets thrown around all too often as a badge of righteous indignation).

But I think that all of those things boil down to "hate" and "fear," on a fundamental level, and I don't think that opponents of gay marriage should be excused merely because they haven't given it that much thought. I mean, what is "ick factor" other than fear or hatred of something alien to you? And "tradition" is neither an excuse for, nor insulation from, wrong-headed thinking. After all, treating black people as sub-human was once a "traditional cultural value" in this country, and yet I think we could both agree that slavery and Jim Crow were institutions defined by hate and fear.

I don't think that using the terms "hate" and "fear" distort the issue--I think they clarify it. If gay marriage opponents are uncomfortable with the suggestion that they support a hateful law, then perhaps they need to better scrutinize their reasons for supporting it.

[JackBurton]

Just curious, what is the peoples opinion of the idea that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy?

[Ben Sones]

Eh? Equal protection isn't what I'm arguing about. My point was that rights derive from the States, which is pretty clear. Everything you've posted has agreed with that basic idea while expanding the rights protected from any gov't interference whatsoever.

I think we may be arguing past each other, here. I am not contesting that states lack the power to limit the rights of the people; clearly they do have that power. I am merely contending that the "natural state" of any given right is that the people have it, unless either the state or the federal government explicitly rules otherwise. Therefor, gay people are not obligated to petition the government for the right to marry; rather, the government is obligated to make a case for taking that right (which is naturally theirs) away. And if the government can't provide justification for why that right should be restricted (which I believe that they cannot), then any law restricting it is, pretty much by definition, unjust.

[krise madsen]

Just curious, what is the peoples opinion of the idea that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy?

Hogwash. We've had gay marriages in Denmark for some time. Nobody's contemplating legalising polygamy. In fact, there was a case not too long ago where an Iraqi interpreter who had helped Danish forces in Iraq was granted asylum along with his family. While there was some discussion about a possible special arrangement to ensure none of the wives were disadvantaged, there was one thing everyone was adamant about: He could only stay married to one of them.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Wholly Schmidt]

So what's the popular explanation for why polygamy is wrong in the first place?

[Tortilla]

Just curious, what is the peoples opinion of the idea that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy?

Which peoples? ;-)

I think it's a hogwash argument myself, along the lines of arguing that allowing racial minorities to vote inevitably leads to letting mentally ill convicted nazi felons vote twice.

I think one can make an argument that polygamy has practical problems for society and society has a reasonable case for outlawing it. Homosexual unions on the other hand don't seem to me to lead to any problems, though others might argue differently I suppose.

[WarrenM]

So what's the popular explanation for why polygamy is wrong in the first place?
Same reason as gay marriage, I imagine. It offends God in some way if it's not 1 man, 1 woman.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I think one can make an argument that polygamy has practical problems for society and society has a reasonable case for outlawing it.
An explanation of that argument is what I meant in my question above. I shouldn't have said "popular" argument, that didn't really ask what I meant.

[Ben Sones]

It's a fair question, though, and one often brought up by opponents of gay marriage. And I think it's fair to say that much of the reasoning supporting the argument for why the government has no cause to deny gay people the right to marry could also be used to defend polygamy. Which is not to say that the issues are identical, but I think that it is possible that, when subjected to scrutiny, one might conclude that laws prohibiting polygamy are also unjust. The test is certainly the same--is there a compelling reason why polygamists should be treated differently under the law than other groups? Public distaste for polygamy aside, my personal suspicion is that there is not.

But it's not the issue at hand, nor is it the issue that the courts are addressing. The courts do not have to power to enact broad principles, they can only rule on the specific cases brought before them. So until some polygamist takes the issue to the courts, the matter is academic.

[Hans Lauring]

Same reason as gay marriage, I imagine. It offends God in some way if it's not 1 man, 1 woman.

On a moral level I feel the same way about polygamy as I do gay marriage - that is, I don't care and I feel people should be able to marry livestock or whatever, as long as all participants of the marriage enters under free will.

But I can see how laws when it comes to children, divorce etc. gets fucking complicated when a marriage is between more than two adults.
Arguments I can't see beuing used to restrict gays from marrying.

As Krise said, they been doing it for years here and we're still the same boring Christian nation we were before that was legal.

[Tortilla]

So what's the popular explanation for why polygamy is wrong in the first place?

I think there's a case to be made that it's bad for society as it promotes inequal gender relationships and family situations that are more prone to being abusive.

[JackBurton]

I was going to respond to some points made about polygamy, but I realized I've been hijacking the thread...Sorry for that.

[Talisker]

My understanding (and I haven't so much as Wikied this, so someone else should jump in here and correct me if I'm off) is that civil unions extend almost all the same legal benefits as marriage in California. Among the gaps are certain proceedings having to do with divorce, where the legalese of marriage doesn't apply.
I'd suspect there would also be gaps in stuff dealing with death (death benefits, inheritance, etc).

[Hugin]

This is a bit too simplistic an answer. African-Americans were some 7 percentage points of the Yes-vote. A wake-up call to the African-American community and the HBTQ community to engage them, certainly, but to use it as THE reason, given that the initiative came from other groups, was funded by other groups and got a majority of its vote from other groups?

As I said, there were other factors, but as an African American I'm not letting my community off the hook on this. 7 percent is huge, considering African Americans voted in favor of Prop 8 something like 70-30. They're a big, big reason why it passed.

[Tortilla]

I was going to respond to some points made about polygamy, but I realized I've been hijacking the thread...Sorry for that.

Please do. It's not like this is the only prop 8 thread.

The polygamy topic is unfortunately a frequent if unwelcome guest at homosexual union discussions. Sort of like how that one cousin you hate is always at christmas. You know the one, she has super thick glasses, room temperature IQ, and perpetual drool on her chin. The one your parents always insist you share your new toys with, but inexplicably get mad when you hit her with your new baseball bat. Unlike the cousin though, the polygamy topic isn't going to suddenly get hot in a few years so we might as well discuss it now.

[jerri blank]

Your Christianity analogy is bollocks, however. I seem to recall the Constitution does indeed protect your right to worship how you choose. It's pretty near the top, I think.

According to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Constitution also protects the right to marry the person of your choice - in fact, it's fundamental, which means that the state must have a compelling interest in regulating it. I haven't yet found a compelling interest to stop two consenting adults who aren't related closely by blood to get married, even if they are of the same sex.