You're right there. I really don't like Scalia.
and often times I disagree, but he often rightfully asserts that whenever the Supreme Court rules on a matter they remove the topic from the democratic process. Instead of the people deciding the issue, 9 Justices decide for everyone. On rare occassions, the intervention of the Justices was necessary. I do not see this being the case in the present situation.
"The People" are often incorrect in their desires, and this is why we don't have a true democracy. They're also free to vote for propositions in California that may or may not be unconstitutional. The courts need to decide these matters. Public opinion often favors status quo, especially in matters where a small number have their rights infringed upon. A large number won't care (and may or may not vote as a result), and a significant number would rather allow things to continue as they are since they don't want to upset the apple cart. Much of the testimony offered by proponents of Prop 8 cited things like the negative economic impact of same sex marriage, the risk to children (which one would think should thwart support for
any type of same sex union), or the need to only assent to marriages that produce offspring. While these views had no basis in fact and were presented with embarrassingly little evidence to support their claims (often with links to fly-by-night websites like
http://1man1woman.net, yes a real site presented as evidence, or no peer-reviewed research whatsoever), one could see how a significant fraction of the voting public would be persuaded to believe long perpetuated myths about gay marriage and relatively unmotivated to research the matter themselves, or to take up any kind of action to promote something by which they are not directly affected or to which they are not directly connected.
And the crux of the matter in my mind is rights. Not labels and not the courts trying to legislate tolerance, here's a hint, they're bad at it.
The "label" aspect of this matter is a little dismissive. The idea of "marriage" and the word itself is very important to those seeking it. To be "married" is to have all of the same rights and none of the imposed artificial division. In this case, those defending Prop 8 are willing to tell same sex couples what they should be happy with. The fact remains that there needs to be an argument made for creating an artificial wedge that divides and compartmentalizes same sex marriage from other marriages. I assume most people are capable of distinguishing gender, so I further assume that a gay couple won't have to explain to people that they are in a "gay marriage." Rather, it should be plainly obvious without the need for the state to label it with something goofy like "civil union" or "domestic partnership." You (and others) seem to argue that the onus is on supporters of same sex marriage. I think it's entirely the opposite, and I would point to the fact that we no longer have separate water fountains or restrooms for African Americans as compelling evidence that it's a really bad idea to have "separate but equal." Hey, black people had their own facilities, and they were just as good as those for white folks. What's the big deal? Separate but equal, right? Why weren't they okay with that? Maybe the people asserting that the oppressed group should be happy with what they have aren't qualified to make that assessment.
And I wouldn't be so quick to embrace the matter being decided by the Supreme Court. You very well may not like the outcome.
I'm not quick to embrace it. Not at all. I think it's a necessary evil. In fact, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need a court system. You're right: the outcome could very well turn out to uphold the status quo and decide that same sex marriage isn't protected by the Constitution. The trouble is, I don't see how this is going to be resolved in a reasonable or timely way without arguing it before SCOTUS. Too many states have their own versions of this matter, and it seems like it's a huge mess that is all pointing toward a common resolution. It's not perfect, but it seems where this is headed, and I suspect strongly that there's an excellent case to be made that denying same sex marriages is unconstitutional. I suppose my faith in the ability of SCOTUS to see it that way might be naive, but we'll see.
BTW, having read the 138 page opinion, but not the trial transcript, the only thing abundently clear is either the incompetence of the Prop 8 lawyers or the bias of the judge.
I'm wondering what you are specifically taking issue with regarding the opinion. Did you read some of the testimony presented by the proponents' witnesses? It was some of the must absurd stuff I've ever seen this side of the Dover ID case. In many instances, the judge had no choice but to describe their testimony as having no weight. Anyone's characterization of bias in that opinion will vary depending on which side of this issue they already side with, but I'm having difficulty understanding what great evidentiary support was provided by the proponents of Prop 8. I'd love for you (or anyone else) to point these out to me. From what I read, this was a very inexpertly argued case by the proponents. Most of the witnesses they intended to call weren't called once it came to trial. Some plaintiffs' witnesses weren't cross-examined. Even the basic thesis of how the State of California should have a vested interest in prohibiting same sex marriage was ill-conceived and not supported by evidence. What arguments were provided were from suspect sources and easily dismissed.I suppose you could argue that the proponents' lawyers were hacks (they were), but this doesn't mean there was an overly compelling argument hanging out there somewhere in the aether to be made in the first place. A relatively stronger case surely could have been presented I suppose, but even given its best face, I think this was doomed from the outset. We can argue back and forth about the inherent biases of the judge, but I'd rather stick with what you or anyone else finds to be compelling evidence that was either presented at trial or not included (and should have been). That to me would be much more interesting.
To me, this seems to be a matter of whether any state is constitutionally allowed to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Even if it boils down to a mere issue with what to call it, I think it's still worth the fight. This isn't about legislating tolerance, it's about what is consistent with the Constitution. My own opinion is that there is nothing distinguishing this matter from issues of division by race. I'm curious to know what is so different about this issue than anti-miscegenation statutes and what was resolved in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. States can't prevent mixed-race marriages, and I'm failing to see how this is any less discriminatory. I suppose this all boils down to how to interpret the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, but I have no idea why we would make an exception in this case. It's probably easy to perpetuate discrimination of a class of people that we've been comfortable with marginalizing out of convenience or indifference, but times do change, and with it our willingness to deny people their rights thankfully erodes.
You can't be this thick.
You have made some pathetic arguments in the past, but this goes to the top of list.
You have made some pathetic arguments in the past, but this goes to the top of list.
You know what kind of grades and scores it takes an Asian American to get into medical school versus others? I have a niece with a 4.0 GPA from college who is having a hard time getting into med school. Granted, med school is hard. But if she was a different race, she would be in.
