California Proposition 8

all I can do is repeat my call to all the fags and dykes in cali: come on over to CT, we'll have ourselves a time and celebrate freedom.

Maybe we could all shoot guns, too, just to piss off the NRA.

Fags with mags! I love it!

 

I guess this is really the problem.
The government should just do civil unions for everyone, and allow people's religions to decide who's married and who's not.

Then anyone worried about the "sanctity" of marriage can talk to their religious leaders, and two adults that want to start a family can have the same legal rights as any other two adults.

 

HuckFinn, do you agree with the supreme court ruling in 1967 to strike down all anti-miscegenation laws?

 

Well I voted no on it. I have a really hard time understanding why allowing same sex couples to committ demeans heterosexual marriages. It seems to me the high percentage of divorces does that by itself.

The proponents of it like to use the argument that it would have been taught in our elementary schools. I can't remember having marriage being taught in elementary school. Even if it was I doubt teaching that same sex individuals can form lasting committments would turn anyone gay.

It's just another example of one group of individuals feeling they are superior to another.

 

Yes. Racial equality was the clear intent of the 14th Amendment; androgeny was not.

 

Is that clear intent based on the text in the amendment, or your interpretation of history at that time and why the amendment was written?

 

Canada, of course, has gone the other route. A couple of years ago, two male Mounties tied the knot. This confirms some rumours we've had about Mounties for a long time.
Let's face it, they're cocksuckers.

 

The founders of our country clearly were against majoritarian rule, thus the bicameral legislature, 2 senators per state regardless of size, the separate and co-equal executive, and the independent judiciary. The spirit of our founding document is thus. In using, for the first time ever, the constitutional amendment process to take away fundamental rights from a group of individuals, the people of California have taken a step back from, rather than towards, a more perfect union.

Shame.

 

Both text and context are crucial to proper reading of the Constitution.

Only if you fallaciously assume the "fundamental right" to redefine the historic institution of marriage:

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

 

The right to enter into contracts is a fundamental right of free men. The marriage contract is not mentioned in the constitution, and is historically a contract having to do with property, not love or family. The current definition of marriage as the foundation of society is not historical. It has changed with the times.

Further, it is not fallacious to take a view one way or the other on the historical or legal meaning of marriage.

If we are to depend on common law as it existed at the time of the founders, by the way, we cannot believe in personhood from the moment of conception. In the time of Jefferson, the soul was thought to enter the body during the "quickening", generally thought of as occurring the first time a baby kicks.

 

This text?:
Section 1. 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.

There is no mention of race in the text at all. So, you're basing it purely on what you think was the purpose behind the text. That seems like a pretty slippery slope, and certainly not strict constructionist. I guess you never said it, but I wouldn't think you'd be for interpreting the text that much to add meaning that clearly can't be found in the text.

 

further...

 

I said text and context were both important. Context includes historical setting, related writings, debates, etc. The fact that racial equality was the main driver of the 14th Amendment is easily established.

What's your point? As I said before, the existence of the 19th Amendment clearly demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not abolish legal recognition of male-female distinctions. Are you now trying to argue that the 19th Amendment somehow mandates legalization of same-sex marriage?

 

I am arguing that a man's right to marry a man is guaranteed by the 19th amendment just as a woman's right to marry a man is.

Marriage is a legal contract that has nothing to do with love and everything to do with property. It's a financial alliance that in the eyes of the law ought to have nothing to do with religion.

Further, I would advise you that you are shooting yourself in the foot with this short term gain. Your majority now could easily become a minority in the future, and the system you defend could become your enemy. As a freedom loving American, I find your majoritarian inclination distasteful and dangerous.

 

Maryjohn:
If your quote of the 19th Amendment is correct, it refers to the right to vote, not the right to marry. If the authors of the 19th Amendment had same sex marriage in mind, which I doubt, they would have said so.

In fact, until the second half of the twentieth century, homosexual rights were not on anyone's agenda. As William Manchester said, in his book "Goodbye Darkness", if most people in the U.S. in the WWII era had heard reference to "gay" people living together with public approval, it simply would not have been believed.

 

I don't believe that those marriages would be valid in California.


Unless prop 8 is overturned.

 

I guess I am making the case that the spirit of the constitution, if not the specific text, is always moving towards granting fundamental rights to everyone.

as far as social context, the framers of our constitution wisely kept their language as broad as possible, so that it would remain relevant in a changing social context.

interestingly, it seems prop 8 may be undone by the mormon church's involvement in the drive to approve it.

 

I am not familiar with California law, but many states, like New York, have specific language that recognizes marriages from other states as valid in that state.

 

There is a thing called constitutional law in the United States. (Barack Obama was a professor in constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.)
In fact, the Constitution is law, and is considered the fundamental law from which other laws may be judged in that country. You won't get very far in law school, or in any court, if you argue "spirit ... if not text." You will lose just about every case.
As for the Mormon Church undoing a Proposition passed by the voters, tell me more. My understanding is that Propositions passed by the voters in California (and probably other states) have the force of law. Am I wrong?

 

That's even more of an absurd leap in logic than Roe v. Wade. I'm confident that the SC won't be jumping off that cliff anytime soon.

It has everything to do with the basic family unit.

Homosexual individuals are protected by the same Bill of Rights as heterosexuals. They're also free to practice their perversion however they choose. What they're not entitled to, what nobody's entitled to, is public approbation.