Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (2 Viewers)

[StrikeS2k]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8?

That's called denial, not indifference.

And this is why I haven't gotten in to posting reasons someone might vote for this that have nothing to do with bigotry. Because the standard response is "that's not true. The person is a bigot ANYWAYS." And this is why I don't respond to Tim's posts either. What's the point? Some people won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint when they have set in their mind that their is only one reason someone would have that viewpoint.

It's because you can't, and it's as simple as that. That's why you're refusing to engage. We're all sitting here waiting for some logic...

No you're not. I could put the most logical reasoning in the world on a silver platter in front of you and I'd still get "that's not logical". Please.

Ok, how about this. Let's say I'm undecided on the issue. Convince me. If it is in fact the most logical reasoning in the world, I'd like to hear a good argument.But why do I get the feeling you'll avoid the question again?

I've never argued for or against prop. 8 so I'm not avoiding anything. All I've said is that it's wrong to label everyone who did vote for it a bigot. And I have provided a perfectly valid reason someone might have voted for it - indifference. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for prop. 8. It's already passed. That would be a waste of time.

What percentage of the 5,324,131 people who voted yes on 8 (99.1% of precincts reporting) would you say voted Yes on 8 due to indifference?

How the heck would I know? Do you?

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

Let me get this right Tim - if someone says that it is ok for you to marry whom you love/are attracted to - but only if they are of the opposite gender - that is not bigotry?Just because you are a bigot doesnt mean you are a bad person. It is a personal fault. We all have them and to be honest, we ALL have bigotry within us because it is an innate part of being human - one that we are evolving past imo, but that takes a lot of time. That said, if you discriminate in this way, you are acting in a bigoted manner. Just no way around it, no matter how much it may hurt someone's feelings to be called a bigot.Heck, if you are an admitted racist, it would seem that they would be proud to be called a bigot. if they didnt like the monicker, maybe they shouldnt be racist.much the same way, if you choose to act in a bigoted manner by denying others the ability to marry whom they choose, then either accept this part of you as bigoted, or recognize that the truth hurts and take steps to change it.

I'm just not as quick as you are to use this definition. Bigotry, in my mind, is connected to hatred. I refuse to believe that all of the people who voted for 8 hate gay people. This argument is awkward for me; I don't want to be put in the position of defending these people, because I think they are very wrong. But wrong and bigoted are two different things.

 

[dparker713]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

Bigots want gay couples to have civil unions that nearly perfectly mirror marriage? Bigots would want nothing of the sort. Bigotry and fairness are pretty much red herrings in this debate on both sides. The population was asked to define a word, they did. You dont like their definition and neither did 4 of 7 judges.

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

Oh, well I guess the bigots win EVERY time then huh? Cause there are bigots on the winning side of every issue voted on in an election. I'll bet there were some bigots even on the No side of prop. 8 believe it or not!!! Yeah, I'm sure that's what you meant.....Another issue you've resorted to name calling on is illegal immigration.

Really?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

Oh, well I guess the bigots win EVERY time then huh? Cause there are bigots on the winning side of every issue voted on in an election. I'll bet there were some bigots even on the No side of prop. 8 believe it or not!!! Yeah, I'm sure that's what you meant.....Another issue you've resorted to name calling on is illegal immigration.

Really?

Yes. Don't act surprised. You've done it repeatedly.

 

[Chaka]

For me 8 was not the hotbutton issue because it just seems so intuitively obvious to vote No. This is why I want to know the true logic and reasoning driving the Yes on 8 campaign. I have not seen one shred of intellectual honesty coming from that campaign since day one.

I don't live in CA so obviously I didn't vote on this issue nor was I subject to the campaigning by the yes on 8 people. I have no reason to doubt that they were as disgusting as you have repeatedly asserted. However, that doesn't mean the people voting had the same feelings. If I remember right this is the 2nd time this issue has come up in CA and the 2nd time banning gay marriage won. I was in CA the first time it went through and I don't remember the campaign being that disgusting. So, considering it's passed twice, I have to wonder if maybe this isn't just the will of the people and not just because of the efforts of the Yes on 8 people. And, maybe one of the reasons the Yes on 8 people were so strong in their voice was BECAUSE this is the 2nd time they've had to go through this. That would bother me as well if I were pushing an initiative.

Very good points. I don't recall the Prop 22 campaign being nearly this deceptive and downright cruel. However I think the vocal nature of the Yes on 8 campaign is due to the fact that they were legitimately worried about it not passing. 61% of voters voted to pass Prop 22 in 2000 and only 52% voted to pass Prop 8. When this rolls around in another 8 years it will likely pass overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage and the campaign against it will possibly become violent.

 

[StrikeS2k]

For me 8 was not the hotbutton issue because it just seems so intuitively obvious to vote No. This is why I want to know the true logic and reasoning driving the Yes on 8 campaign. I have not seen one shred of intellectual honesty coming from that campaign since day one.

I don't live in CA so obviously I didn't vote on this issue nor was I subject to the campaigning by the yes on 8 people. I have no reason to doubt that they were as disgusting as you have repeatedly asserted. However, that doesn't mean the people voting had the same feelings. If I remember right this is the 2nd time this issue has come up in CA and the 2nd time banning gay marriage won. I was in CA the first time it went through and I don't remember the campaign being that disgusting. So, considering it's passed twice, I have to wonder if maybe this isn't just the will of the people and not just because of the efforts of the Yes on 8 people. And, maybe one of the reasons the Yes on 8 people were so strong in their voice was BECAUSE this is the 2nd time they've had to go through this. That would bother me as well if I were pushing an initiative.

Very good points. I don't recall the Prop 22 campaign being nearly this deceptive and downright cruel. However I think the vocal nature of the Yes on 8 campaign is due to the fact that they were legitimately worried about it not passing. 61% of voters voted to pass Prop 22 in 2000 and only 52% voted to pass Prop 8. When this rolls around in another 8 years it will likely pass overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage and the campaign against it will possibly become violent.

I have stated on multiple occasions, including in this thread, that I think it's inevitable that gay marriage becomes the law. I'm not sure if that will happen through legislative action or via a Supreme Court ruling but I have no doubt it will happen. I don't know if violence will ensue at any point though. I hope not.

 

[Chaka]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8? What are they "indifferent" to?

That's called denial, not indifference.

Walls...walls of cement, brick, and wire - and walls that could not be seen or touched - invisble walls built by prejudice, fear, hate, and what is worse, indifference. Walls that blocked our minds and rendered us insensitive to the pain inflicted on others.

..the walls of a people who took freedom for granted and in doing so lost it.

:

:

:

We had also discovered that there was a definite method...He attacked only one group at a time....He attacked each as a minority group. And with ingenuity and slyness of the primitive, he apparently sensed human behavior patterns and exploited them. He counted on the apathy of the individual, who would react only if he himself were endangered.

LinkI cut and pasted this from an old thread so I'm not sure if the link still works, but generally people vote for status quo unless the change will benefit them. While California has had Gay Marriage for about 6 months, voters simply didn't care enough about the plight of others to vote in favor of accepting this change, They wanted to keep the status quo.

ETA: Like I stated previously, it isn't bigotry but it isn't really a reason to be proud of either.

This is an interesting and reasonable premise. My question is if the existing law does not hurt anyone then the principles of status quo above don't seem to support the vehemence of the Yes on 8 people who were arguing for change and the voters responded to that argument and voted for change.

I am not disagreeing with you that the root behind every vote against Gay Marriage is either prejudice and/or hatred and/or bigotry (Hiltgunt's word). Where I disagree is that the 52% of the population that voted against this were all bigots. They just didn't care enough about gays to intellectually challenge the "vehemence of the Yes on 8 people" because it didn't matter to them. So if allowing Gay Marriage might mean putting nice pastors in jail because they dared preach against gay marriage or refused to marry someone or some other argument that might ring true on the surface to a voter then they voted for the measure. They were certainly used by the bigots, but their sin is not caring enough about people to see it or care.

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?This indifference argument is a little thin.

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

Oh, well I guess the bigots win EVERY time then huh? Cause there are bigots on the winning side of every issue voted on in an election. I'll bet there were some bigots even on the No side of prop. 8 believe it or not!!! Yeah, I'm sure that's what you meant.....Another issue you've resorted to name calling on is illegal immigration.

Really?

Yes. Don't act surprised. You've done it repeatedly.

link?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?This indifference argument is a little thin.

You keep asking this and no one can know. The question can be just as easily turned around. What percentage of the 5.3 million do you think voted yes due to bigotry? In as enlightened a state as CA I can't imagine it was that many. So how many?

 

[StrikeS2k]

link?

Why? So you can pretend you haven't done it again?

 

[dparker713]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8? What are they "indifferent" to?

That's called denial, not indifference.

Walls...walls of cement, brick, and wire - and walls that could not be seen or touched - invisble walls built by prejudice, fear, hate, and what is worse, indifference. Walls that blocked our minds and rendered us insensitive to the pain inflicted on others.

..the walls of a people who took freedom for granted and in doing so lost it.

:

:

:

We had also discovered that there was a definite method...He attacked only one group at a time....He attacked each as a minority group. And with ingenuity and slyness of the primitive, he apparently sensed human behavior patterns and exploited them. He counted on the apathy of the individual, who would react only if he himself were endangered.

LinkI cut and pasted this from an old thread so I'm not sure if the link still works, but generally people vote for status quo unless the change will benefit them. While California has had Gay Marriage for about 6 months, voters simply didn't care enough about the plight of others to vote in favor of accepting this change, They wanted to keep the status quo.

ETA: Like I stated previously, it isn't bigotry but it isn't really a reason to be proud of either.

This is an interesting and reasonable premise. My question is if the existing law does not hurt anyone then the principles of status quo above don't seem to support the vehemence of the Yes on 8 people who were arguing for change and the voters responded to that argument and voted for change.

I am not disagreeing with you that the root behind every vote against Gay Marriage is either prejudice and/or hatred and/or bigotry (Hiltgunt's word). Where I disagree is that the 52% of the population that voted against this were all bigots. They just didn't care enough about gays to intellectually challenge the "vehemence of the Yes on 8 people" because it didn't matter to them. So if allowing Gay Marriage might mean putting nice pastors in jail because they dared preach against gay marriage or refused to marry someone or some other argument that might ring true on the surface to a voter then they voted for the measure. They were certainly used by the bigots, but their sin is not caring enough about people to see it or care.

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?This indifference argument is a little thin.

I think a good percentage of people voted yes because of outrage at the California Supreme Court. I bet if the proposition had read that the legislature, and not the courts, would decide whether gay marriage is legal would have passed by a much wider margin. Add that with people who barely cared, checked the wrong box, etc and thats plenty for the margin in this vote.

 

[Chaka]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried. Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt require all people to be treated equally, just that certain means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

Well said. However considering that homosexuality is strongly influenced (if not directly and exclusively caused) by genetics then I guess we don't need to worry about their population numbers increasing because they are not, y'know, breeding.As far as people exploring alternative lifestyles well that seems like a problem that would have serious obstacles gaining enough traction to have any impact on population numbers.A bigger problem facing birth rates is affluence. Societies with more money breed less.VOTE NO ON MONEY!!!

 

[DrJ]

Supporters of this should just make blanket statements that have no statistical support whatsoever, like the people that keep marijuana illegal.

"The reason I support proposition 8 is because gay behavior is a gateway behavior into a much wider world of deviancy".

It's not like we have good reasons for a good portion of the laws on the books - just a bunch of bigots fighting to oppose other people's lifestyles.

 

[timschochet]

link?

Why? So you can pretend you haven't done it again?

If it's obvious for everyone to see, I won't be able to pretend, will I?I certainly recall on the illegal immigration issue suggesting that part of the antipathy to illegals is racist against Mexicans; but just as in this issue, I have also stated there are well-meaning people who have, IMO, simply wrong but not bigoted attitudes about that subject. I don't recall once every suggesting on ANY issue that, as you have consistently implied today, that everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or racist.So once again, link?

 

[FatMax]

Supporters of this should just make blanket statements that have no statistical support whatsoever, like the people that keep marijuana illegal. "The reason I support proposition 8 is because gay behavior is a gateway behavior into a much wider world of deviancy". It's not like we have good reasons for a good portion of the laws on the books.

I support both. My reasoning is that as long as nobody is getting hurt, it is none of my damn business.

 

[Chaka]

Though since you mentioned genetics, the gay community has essentially fought vigorously to assert that nature and not nurture are responsible for their preference and as such it can not be unlearned or changed. If that is the case, is it beneficial to society to encourage and/or allow such genes to be passed on to future generations? Alternatively, if these genes are a desireable mutation, should we encourage their spread to the entire society? Or is there some optimum balance between the two traits for our society?

You are treading on a topic that is far more dangerous than homosexual marriages. The Eugenics wars are coming, make no mistake about that. We're gonna create a whole new class of superior humans before long.GATTACA anyone?

 

[Disco Stu]

Supporters of this should just make blanket statements that have no statistical support whatsoever, like the people that keep marijuana illegal. "The reason I support proposition 8 is because gay behavior is a gateway behavior into a much wider world of deviancy". It's not like we have good reasons for a good portion of the laws on the books.

They're already doing this."If we allow two gay people to get married, then what? A brother and sister? A man and a dog???":skyfalling:

 

[FatMax]

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?This indifference argument is a little thin.

You keep asking this and no one can know. The question can be just as easily turned around. What percentage of the 5.3 million do you think voted yes due to bigotry? In as enlightened a state as CA I can't imagine it was that many. So how many?

I would imagine that the people who are truly indifferent would probably skip that particular initiative, but what do I know.

 

[FatMax]

Supporters of this should just make blanket statements that have no statistical support whatsoever, like the people that keep marijuana illegal. "The reason I support proposition 8 is because gay behavior is a gateway behavior into a much wider world of deviancy". It's not like we have good reasons for a good portion of the laws on the books.

They're already doing this."If we allow two gay people to get married, then what? A brother and sister? A man and a dog???":skyfalling:

You forgot pedophilia.

 

[Disco Stu]

Supporters of this should just make blanket statements that have no statistical support whatsoever, like the people that keep marijuana illegal. "The reason I support proposition 8 is because gay behavior is a gateway behavior into a much wider world of deviancy". It's not like we have good reasons for a good portion of the laws on the books.

They're already doing this."If we allow two gay people to get married, then what? A brother and sister? A man and a dog???":skyfalling:

You forgot pedophilia.

"Won't somebody think of the children?!?!"

 

[beavers]

Lawsuits up and coming:

SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues to Invalidate Prop. 8

DHerrera3.jpg

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

That is to say, it's on. In Herrera's own words:

The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone ... Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law.

Looks like it's going to be a long battle ahead of us. Stay tuned. (To read the press release in its entirety, follow the jump.)

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOV. 5, 2008 CONTACT: MATT DORSEY (415) XXX-XXXX

Herrera Joined by Los Angeles, Santa Clara

Counterparts in Suing to Invalidate Prop 8

Leader of S.F.'s original constitutional challenge says amendment

'if allowed to stand...devastates the principle of equal protection'

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 5, 2008) –- City Attorney Dennis Herrera today joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel in filing a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California. The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights. Such a sweeping redefinition of equal protection would require a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment, the petition argues. Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides that a constitutional revision may only be accomplished by a constitutional convention and popular ratification, or by legislative submission to the electorate.

Today's civil action by city and county governments follows a similar action filed earlier in the day by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of same-sex couples. Herrera pledged to lead an aggressive effort to enlist additional support in the civil litigation from other California cities and counties.

"The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone," Herrera said. "Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law."

Herrera represented the City and County of San Francisco as a lead plaintiff in the original legal challenge that resulted in the landmark state Supreme Court decision earlier this year recognizing marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." More than simply toppling a marriage exclusion that discriminated against millions of gay men and lesbians, the high court's May 15, 2008 ruling established gays and lesbians as a suspect class under the California Constitution's equal protection clause, including it among protected classes subject to a standard of strict scrutiny for judicial review.

The City and County of San Francisco was the first government entity in American history ever to sue for marriage equality, asserting in its March 2004 constitutional challenge a broad societal interest to strike down the marriage exclusion in California statutes. By the time the marriage cases were finally decided by the state high court more than four years later, fully twenty-one California cities and counties had joined San Francisco in support of marriage equality for same-sex partners. In total, some 7 of the state's 8 largest cities united for the successful effort: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Long Beach, Sacramento and Oakland. Herrera has pledged a similar effort in the lawsuit filed today by San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles to enlist additional support and participation from other California cities and counties.

 

[Jayrod]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.

The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.

There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God.

It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46

"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"

The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.

Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.

If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

 

[dparker713]

Lawsuits up and coming:

SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues to Invalidate Prop. 8

DHerrera3.jpg

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

That is to say, it's on. In Herrera's own words:

The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone ... Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law.

Looks like it's going to be a long battle ahead of us. Stay tuned. (To read the press release in its entirety, follow the jump.)

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOV. 5, 2008 CONTACT: MATT DORSEY (415) XXX-XXXX

Herrera Joined by Los Angeles, Santa Clara

Counterparts in Suing to Invalidate Prop 8

Leader of S.F.'s original constitutional challenge says amendment

'if allowed to stand...devastates the principle of equal protection'

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 5, 2008) –- City Attorney Dennis Herrera today joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel in filing a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California. The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights. Such a sweeping redefinition of equal protection would require a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment, the petition argues. Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides that a constitutional revision may only be accomplished by a constitutional convention and popular ratification, or by legislative submission to the electorate.

Today's civil action by city and county governments follows a similar action filed earlier in the day by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of same-sex couples. Herrera pledged to lead an aggressive effort to enlist additional support in the civil litigation from other California cities and counties.

"The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone," Herrera said. "Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law."

Herrera represented the City and County of San Francisco as a lead plaintiff in the original legal challenge that resulted in the landmark state Supreme Court decision earlier this year recognizing marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." More than simply toppling a marriage exclusion that discriminated against millions of gay men and lesbians, the high court's May 15, 2008 ruling established gays and lesbians as a suspect class under the California Constitution's equal protection clause, including it among protected classes subject to a standard of strict scrutiny for judicial review.

The City and County of San Francisco was the first government entity in American history ever to sue for marriage equality, asserting in its March 2004 constitutional challenge a broad societal interest to strike down the marriage exclusion in California statutes. By the time the marriage cases were finally decided by the state high court more than four years later, fully twenty-one California cities and counties had joined San Francisco in support of marriage equality for same-sex partners. In total, some 7 of the state's 8 largest cities united for the successful effort: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Long Beach, Sacramento and Oakland. Herrera has pledged a similar effort in the lawsuit filed today by San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles to enlist additional support and participation from other California cities and counties.

If the State Supreme Court overrides an amendment to the California Constitution that JUST passed in response to one of their rulings, all hell may break loose. This is awfully dangerous territory the complaintants are venturing into. If they strike this dow, the court might as well just declare an oligarchy at the same time. I could see this leading to calls for impeachment for every judge supporting this writ.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried.

Can you come up with one that someone honestly believes?The one you came up with is as good as anything I could come up with. But it's not good enough for a real person to actually believe it, I don't think.How many people who voted Yes on 8 are out there arguing for population growth -- for more unprotected sex, for doing away with promoting abstinence, etc.? I don't think anyone sincerely opposes gay marriage because population growth is their overriding concern.Moreover, even if somebody truly did want to promote population growth, what does gay marriage have to do with that? Are gay couples who enter a domestic partnership or a civil union more likely to bear children than gays who get married? I highly doubt it.What you've provided is a hypothetical argument that a hypothetical nitwit somewhere might accept. But I don't think any living, breathing humans would honestly accept it.

Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence.

To my knowledge, the issue has not been litigated under the federal constitution. I know, at least, that the Supreme Court has not addressed it. Our current jurisprudence says that gays are not a protected class. That means strict scrutiny wouldn't be applied for that reason alone (unless the court reverses course and holds that gays are a protected class). But: (1) even if a rational basis test is applied, it's no sure thing that a law banning gay marriage would pass such a test; and (2) even if scrutiny isn't heightened under current jurisprudence on the basis of sexual orientation, it could be heightened under current jurisprudence on the basis of sex, or on the basis that marriage is a fundamental right.So I don't think it's a given that banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 14th Amendment given the current jurisprudence.

And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt require all people to be treated equally, just that certain means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

But if we didn't let gay people drive or vote, that would violate the 14th Amendment.Nobody is saying that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because all people have to be treated equally. Some are saying that it is unconstitutional because the reasons proffered in justification of that discrimination are legally insufficient.

 

[timschochet]

Lawsuits up and coming:

SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues to Invalidate Prop. 8

DHerrera3.jpg

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

That is to say, it's on. In Herrera's own words:

The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone ... Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law.

Looks like it's going to be a long battle ahead of us. Stay tuned. (To read the press release in its entirety, follow the jump.)

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOV. 5, 2008 CONTACT: MATT DORSEY (415) XXX-XXXX

Herrera Joined by Los Angeles, Santa Clara

Counterparts in Suing to Invalidate Prop 8

Leader of S.F.'s original constitutional challenge says amendment

'if allowed to stand...devastates the principle of equal protection'

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 5, 2008) –- City Attorney Dennis Herrera today joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel in filing a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California. The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights. Such a sweeping redefinition of equal protection would require a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment, the petition argues. Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides that a constitutional revision may only be accomplished by a constitutional convention and popular ratification, or by legislative submission to the electorate.

Today's civil action by city and county governments follows a similar action filed earlier in the day by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of same-sex couples. Herrera pledged to lead an aggressive effort to enlist additional support in the civil litigation from other California cities and counties.

"The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone," Herrera said. "Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law."

Herrera represented the City and County of San Francisco as a lead plaintiff in the original legal challenge that resulted in the landmark state Supreme Court decision earlier this year recognizing marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." More than simply toppling a marriage exclusion that discriminated against millions of gay men and lesbians, the high court's May 15, 2008 ruling established gays and lesbians as a suspect class under the California Constitution's equal protection clause, including it among protected classes subject to a standard of strict scrutiny for judicial review.

The City and County of San Francisco was the first government entity in American history ever to sue for marriage equality, asserting in its March 2004 constitutional challenge a broad societal interest to strike down the marriage exclusion in California statutes. By the time the marriage cases were finally decided by the state high court more than four years later, fully twenty-one California cities and counties had joined San Francisco in support of marriage equality for same-sex partners. In total, some 7 of the state's 8 largest cities united for the successful effort: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Long Beach, Sacramento and Oakland. Herrera has pledged a similar effort in the lawsuit filed today by San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles to enlist additional support and participation from other California cities and counties.

Good. I hope it goes to the SCOTUS, and we settle this once and for all.

 

[Chaka]

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?

This indifference argument is a little thin.

You keep asking this and no one can know. The question can be just as easily turned around. What percentage of the 5.3 million do you think voted yes due to bigotry? In as enlightened a state as CA I can't imagine it was that many. So how many?

Most of them. I'm a bigot, the difference between me and them is that I recognize that fact and remember that fact when presented with situations where it could possibly influence my response.

Most people do not believe they are bigoted but those people are lying to themselves. We all have prejudices but most of us don't like to acknowledge that side of ourselves. They say things like "I have nothing against gay people, I just don't want them around my family." These are decent and hard working people we are talking about. They're your neighbors and your friends. You genuinely like these people. They may even have a gay friend themselves about whom they say things like "Yeah Bill is gay but he isn't like regular gay people."

I believe that their support of this measure is rooted in the simple fact that they consider homosexuality to be anathema to them. They don't understand it, heck I don't understand how guys are attracted to guys*, they find it repulsive and they don't want to endorse it. And no one wants to admit that disdain motivates their actions so they talk about sanctity of marriage, protection of children and the like.

But just because they don't realize they are being bigoted does not change the fact that their actions are.

*which brings up the point of genetics again. no one had to tell me to be attracted to girls, I simply was.

 

[timschochet]

If the State Supreme Court overrides an amendment to the California Constitution that JUST passed in response to one of their rulings, all hell may break loose. This is awfully dangerous territory the complaintants are venturing into. If they strike this dow, the court might as well just declare an oligarchy at the same time. I could see this leading to calls for impeachment for every judge supporting this writ.

You may be right, but hopefully that threat will not deter them from doing their duty. This proposition is unconstitutional, as I understand the 14th Amendment, and needs to be struck down.

 

[dparker713]

Lawsuits up and coming:

SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues to Invalidate Prop. 8

DHerrera3.jpg

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

That is to say, it's on. In Herrera's own words:

The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone ... Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law.

Looks like it's going to be a long battle ahead of us. Stay tuned. (To read the press release in its entirety, follow the jump.)

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOV. 5, 2008 CONTACT: MATT DORSEY (415) XXX-XXXX

Herrera Joined by Los Angeles, Santa Clara

Counterparts in Suing to Invalidate Prop 8

Leader of S.F.'s original constitutional challenge says amendment

'if allowed to stand...devastates the principle of equal protection'

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 5, 2008) –- City Attorney Dennis Herrera today joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel in filing a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California. The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights. Such a sweeping redefinition of equal protection would require a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment, the petition argues. Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides that a constitutional revision may only be accomplished by a constitutional convention and popular ratification, or by legislative submission to the electorate.

Today's civil action by city and county governments follows a similar action filed earlier in the day by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of same-sex couples. Herrera pledged to lead an aggressive effort to enlist additional support in the civil litigation from other California cities and counties.

"The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone," Herrera said. "Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law."

Herrera represented the City and County of San Francisco as a lead plaintiff in the original legal challenge that resulted in the landmark state Supreme Court decision earlier this year recognizing marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." More than simply toppling a marriage exclusion that discriminated against millions of gay men and lesbians, the high court's May 15, 2008 ruling established gays and lesbians as a suspect class under the California Constitution's equal protection clause, including it among protected classes subject to a standard of strict scrutiny for judicial review.

The City and County of San Francisco was the first government entity in American history ever to sue for marriage equality, asserting in its March 2004 constitutional challenge a broad societal interest to strike down the marriage exclusion in California statutes. By the time the marriage cases were finally decided by the state high court more than four years later, fully twenty-one California cities and counties had joined San Francisco in support of marriage equality for same-sex partners. In total, some 7 of the state's 8 largest cities united for the successful effort: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Long Beach, Sacramento and Oakland. Herrera has pledged a similar effort in the lawsuit filed today by San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles to enlist additional support and participation from other California cities and counties.

Good. I hope it goes to the SCOTUS, and we settle this once and for all.

This is a case in state court about the state constitution, its highly unlike to go to SCOTUS.

 

[StrikeS2k]

link?

Why? So you can pretend you haven't done it again?

If it's obvious for everyone to see, I won't be able to pretend, will I?I certainly recall on the illegal immigration issue suggesting that part of the antipathy to illegals is racist against Mexicans; but just as in this issue, I have also stated there are well-meaning people who have, IMO, simply wrong but not bigoted attitudes about that subject. I don't recall once every suggesting on ANY issue that, as you have consistently implied today, that everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or racist.

So once again, link?

Just a couple. There are or were more. Not sure if those threads got deleted.

Much of the anti-illegal rhetoric tends to be racist!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...acist&st=50I especially like this one, where you actually started a thread to go after those opposed to illegal immigration, and acknowledge in the thread that your use of the word was "inflammatory". But, as usual, you go on to say that you in now way were trying to be antagonistic by calling those people "whackos". Wow, sounds like exactly what I've been describing all day in this thread, huh?

Calling all immigration wackos..., this thread is for you!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...acist&st=50

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights.

This is what I was commenting on before. It's really odd that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote.But apparently it's true. The way the above sentence is phrased, along with the fact that the proposition wasn't legally challenged and defeated long before today, leads me to believe that Herrera has no real leg to stand on here.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?

This indifference argument is a little thin.

You keep asking this and no one can know. The question can be just as easily turned around. What percentage of the 5.3 million do you think voted yes due to bigotry? In as enlightened a state as CA I can't imagine it was that many. So how many?

Most of them. I'm a bigot, the difference between me and them is that I recognize that fact and remember that fact when presented with situations where it could possibly influence my response.

Most people do not believe they are bigoted but those people are lying to themselves. We all have prejudices but most of us don't like to acknowledge that side of ourselves. They say things like "I have nothing against gay people, I just don't want them around my family." These are decent and hard working people we are talking about. They're your neighbors and your friends. You genuinely like these people. They may even have a gay friend themselves about whom they say things like "Yeah Bill is gay but he isn't like regular gay people."

I believe that their support of this measure is rooted in the simple fact that they consider homosexuality to be anathema to them. They don't understand it, heck I don't understand how guys are attracted to guys*, they find it repulsive and they don't want to endorse it. And no one wants to admit that disdain motivates their actions so they talk about sanctity of marriage, protection of children and the like.

But just because they don't realize they are being bigoted does not change the fact that their actions are.

*which brings up the point of genetics again. no one had to tell me to be attracted to girls, I simply was.

Prejudice and bigotry are two entirely different things. I can have a prejudice but not act upon it, at which point it becomes bigotry.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the State Supreme Court overrides an amendment to the California Constitution that JUST passed in response to one of their rulings, all hell may break loose. This is awfully dangerous territory the complaintants are venturing into. If they strike this dow, the court might as well just declare an oligarchy at the same time. I could see this leading to calls for impeachment for every judge supporting this writ.

Well it looks to me like the challenge isn't based on the substance of the proposition, but on the procedure under which it passed. If the procedure was faulty, that's a legitimate gripe. (Although I doubt the procedure really was faulty; but I don't know anything about it.)

 

[Chaka]

Again I ask: What percentage of the 5.3 million people who voted Yes on 8 did so because they were indifferent?

This indifference argument is a little thin.

You keep asking this and no one can know. The question can be just as easily turned around. What percentage of the 5.3 million do you think voted yes due to bigotry? In as enlightened a state as CA I can't imagine it was that many. So how many?

Most of them. I'm a bigot, the difference between me and them is that I recognize that fact and remember that fact when presented with situations where it could possibly influence my response.

Most people do not believe they are bigoted but those people are lying to themselves. We all have prejudices but most of us don't like to acknowledge that side of ourselves. They say things like "I have nothing against gay people, I just don't want them around my family." These are decent and hard working people we are talking about. They're your neighbors and your friends. You genuinely like these people. They may even have a gay friend themselves about whom they say things like "Yeah Bill is gay but he isn't like regular gay people."

I believe that their support of this measure is rooted in the simple fact that they consider homosexuality to be anathema to them. They don't understand it, heck I don't understand how guys are attracted to guys*, they find it repulsive and they don't want to endorse it. And no one wants to admit that disdain motivates their actions so they talk about sanctity of marriage, protection of children and the like.

But just because they don't realize they are being bigoted does not change the fact that their actions are.

*which brings up the point of genetics again. no one had to tell me to be attracted to girls, I simply was.

Prejudice and bigotry are two entirely different things. I can have a prejudice but not act upon it, at which point it becomes bigotry.

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

 

[timschochet]

link?

Why? So you can pretend you haven't done it again?

If it's obvious for everyone to see, I won't be able to pretend, will I?I certainly recall on the illegal immigration issue suggesting that part of the antipathy to illegals is racist against Mexicans; but just as in this issue, I have also stated there are well-meaning people who have, IMO, simply wrong but not bigoted attitudes about that subject. I don't recall once every suggesting on ANY issue that, as you have consistently implied today, that everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or racist.

So once again, link?

Just a couple. There are or were more. Not sure if those threads got deleted.

Much of the anti-illegal rhetoric tends to be racist!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...acist&st=50I especially like this one, where you actually started a thread to go after those opposed to illegal immigration, and acknowledge in the thread that your use of the word was "inflammatory". But, as usual, you go on to say that you in now way were trying to be antagonistic by calling those people "whackos". Wow, sounds like exactly what I've been describing all day in this thread, huh?

Calling all immigration wackos..., this thread is for you!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...acist&st=50

OK, I don't want to hijack this thread any more with this back and forth. Obviously you're going to believe what you want, and that's fine. If anyone wants to examine what I wrote in those threads and why, they are free to open them. If as a result, they believe as you do that I engage in name-calling as a general habit, I can't stop them. I regret the use of the word "whackos". At the time, I was specifically referring to a certain type of opponent to illegal immigration, not all opponents to illegal immigration. But it was a mistake to use that term.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

I really wish every Christian saw it this way. For the last few weeks the Yes on 8 supporters staged rallies at one of the busiest intersections in town. This spot is only a few blocks from my house. There were people waving signs, shouting, waving at cars etc. There have been countless letters to the editor in my local paper. Some of them 'fire and brimstone' others spoke of tradition and family. One of the guys I work with painted 'YES on 8' on the windows of his mini-van. Although I find it admirable that these people were so passionate about this cause it made me sad. And not because I thought they were hateful or bigoted but because they were misguided.If people want to talk about the erosion of the American family or family structure it don't look at the gays. All those divorces? All of those broken or single parent homes? All of those children born to underage or unfit mothers? Last time I checked that was the work of straight people.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good. I hope it goes to the SCOTUS, and we settle this once and for all.

This is a case in state court about the state constitution, its highly unlike to go to SCOTUS.

Right. It can't possibly go to SCOTUS if the blurb from the article is accurate (that the complaint invokes California's equal protection clause, not the federal equal protection clause).

 

[StrikeS2k]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The reason I am not concerned about measure 8 is this law cannot stand, and will not last. This is inevitable. 40 years ago, black people couldn't vote in this country. We corrected that travesty. We will correct the gay marriage issue. This is an issue of human rights, and it will be overturned. It may take five years, it may take ten years. But this evil law will not survive.

 

[Thread]

The reason I am not concerned about measure 8 is this law cannot stand, and will not last. This is inevitable. 40 years ago, black people couldn't vote in this country. We corrected that travesty. We will correct the gay marriage issue. This is an issue of human rights, and it will be overturned. It may take five years, it may take ten years. But this evil law will not survive.

Here hear!

 

[StrikeS2k]

OK, I don't want to hijack this thread any more with this back and forth. Obviously you're going to believe what you want, and that's fine. If anyone wants to examine what I wrote in those threads and why, they are free to open them. If as a result, they believe as you do that I engage in name-calling as a general habit, I can't stop them. I regret the use of the word "whackos". At the time, I was specifically referring to a certain type of opponent to illegal immigration, not all opponents to illegal immigration. But it was a mistake to use that term.

Yea, yeah. And you weren't trying to antagonize anyone either, right?

 

[StrikeS2k]

The reason I am not concerned about measure 8 is this law cannot stand, and will not last. This is inevitable. 40 years ago, black people couldn't vote in this country. We corrected that travesty. We will correct the gay marriage issue. This is an issue of human rights, and it will be overturned. It may take five years, it may take ten years. But this evil law will not survive.

Yup. That's why the actual issue here is of no concern to me. At best this just delays the inevitable.

 

[dparker713]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried.

Can you come up with one that someone honestly believes?The one you came up with is as good as anything I could come up with. But it's not good enough for a real person to actually believe it, I don't think.How many people who voted Yes on 8 are out there arguing for population growth -- for more unprotected sex, for doing away with promoting abstinence, etc.? I don't think anyone sincerely opposes gay marriage because population growth is their overriding concern.Moreover, even if somebody truly did want to promote population growth, what does gay marriage have to do with that? Are gay couples who enter a domestic partnership or a civil union more likely to bear children than gays who get married? I highly doubt it.What you've provided is a hypothetical argument that a hypothetical nitwit somewhere might accept. But I don't think any living, breathing humans would honestly accept it.

How about its a vote to smack down activist judges? That this is something that the legislature should decide and unfortuntely the normal democratic process was circumvented and this is the only way to overturn the supreme court of california. As for the argument being hypothetical, yeah its pretty abstract, but the argument in favor is essentially an emotional/irrational one just as the prevailing argument against. For: Its only fair; Against: Thats not what God wants. Problem is, there is very little in this case to do with fairness, the rights conferred by marriage are nearly identical to civil unions. Its a question of nomeclature and acceptance, neither of which can be effectively legislated.

Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence.

To my knowledge, the issue has not been litigated under the federal constitution. I know, at least, that the Supreme Court has not addressed it. Our current jurisprudence says that gays are not a protected class. That means strict scrutiny wouldn't be applied for that reason alone (unless the court reverses course and holds that gays are a protected class). But: (1) even if a rational basis test is applied, it's no sure thing that a law banning gay marriage would pass such a test; and (2) even if scrutiny isn't heightened under current jurisprudence on the basis of sexual orientation, it could be heightened under current jurisprudence on the basis of sex, or on the basis that marriage is a fundamental right.So I don't think it's a given that banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 14th Amendment given the current jurisprudence.

Im not saying that it wouldnt necessarily be ruled a violation of the 14th, but at this point its not. And given the reluctance of the Court to declare sexual orientation protected and the current makeup of the Court, it would seem to be an uphill battle to me. As far as I know, they've stayed away from anything to do with DOMA and I doubt they'd jump in here if they could avoid it.

And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt require all people to be treated equally, just that certain means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

But if we didn't let gay people drive or vote, that would violate the 14th Amendment.Nobody is saying that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because all people have to be treated equally. Some are saying that it is unconstitutional because the reasons proffered in justification of that discrimination are legally insufficient.

Im providing examples to people as to how we do not treat all people equally. This is a common misconception of the general public. I've made no contention that all discrimination is legal, just that we discriminate in all sorts of ways with all sorts of laws.

 

[beavers]

The 28-page suit filed with the high court in San Francisco this afternoon argues that the California Constitution's equal protection provisions do not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest politically disfavored groups of constitutional rights.

This is what I was commenting on before. It's really odd that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote.But apparently it's true. The way the above sentence is phrased, along with the fact that the proposition wasn't legally challenged and defeated long before today, leads me to believe that Herrera has no real leg to stand on here.

The state of Ohio amended their constitution in 2004 to include one of the most discriminatory language for gays and lesbians. This amendment was passed by a simple majority. It really didn't have a chance outside of Athens, Columbus and Cleveland. The amendment goes as far as denying employee health benefits granted to same sex public employees. Ohio State was outraged and led the way to offer "household member" benefits. So instead of calling them "Same Sex" benefits, the name simply changed to household member and many public employers in the area have followed suit. A household member now includes eligibility for a step son, parent, brother, sister etc.Passing constitutional amendments is common in Ohio. In fact, we've had to vote on minimum wage, smoking, gambling, etc amendments. I've voted NO on each and every one. As a US citizen, I try to stay consistent with my beliefs and one of those is to keep the law of the land (or state) the way is was originally intended to be.Adding silly amendments to the constitution makes a mockery of it IMO. And from how it sounds Maurile, CA doesn't pass amendments often. You have now started on that slippery slope and you'll soon see proposed amendments that ban people wearing white shoes after Labor Day.

 

[Chaka]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

 

[dparker713]

Good. I hope it goes to the SCOTUS, and we settle this once and for all.

This is a case in state court about the state constitution, its highly unlike to go to SCOTUS.

Right. It can't possibly go to SCOTUS if the blurb from the article is accurate (that the complaint invokes California's equal protection clause, not the federal equal protection clause).

Well, it could still go to SCOTUS if they've also included a claim it violates the US Constitution, but I highly doubt they'd be granted cert.

 

[dparker713]

If the State Supreme Court overrides an amendment to the California Constitution that JUST passed in response to one of their rulings, all hell may break loose. This is awfully dangerous territory the complaintants are venturing into. If they strike this dow, the court might as well just declare an oligarchy at the same time. I could see this leading to calls for impeachment for every judge supporting this writ.

Well it looks to me like the challenge isn't based on the substance of the proposition, but on the procedure under which it passed. If the procedure was faulty, that's a legitimate gripe. (Although I doubt the procedure really was faulty; but I don't know anything about it.)

From what I read, sounds more like they're claiming the EP clause of the constitution imposes new procedural requirements when trying to pass an amendment that touches and concerns EP as opposed to some other clause. But even if they do overturn this on purely procedural grounds, thats not how its going to play publicly.

 

[NoFBinLA]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8?

That's called denial, not indifference.

And this is why I haven't gotten in to posting reasons someone might vote for this that have nothing to do with bigotry. Because the standard response is "that's not true. The person is a bigot ANYWAYS." And this is why I don't respond to Tim's posts either. What's the point? Some people won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint when they have set in their mind that their is only one reason someone would have that viewpoint.

I'll bite here.I dunno if you live in California or not but those who voted on 8 - either way - were NOT indifferent. In fact it was one of the most motivated campaigns I have ever seen and both sides spent a ton of money and energy promoting their agendas.

I have to vehemently disagree with indifference. If it were indifference on one side or another, someone would have won big because the other side would not have bothered to vote.

There migth be reasons not involving bigotry here but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree that indifference is one of them.

It sure wasn't for the folks I saw at polls and on TV last night.

 

[The Z Machine]

You know what pissed me off most about Prop 8?

That I couldn't be vocal about my negativity towards it at work. I wanted to go to each and every one of my co-workers and gets them to explain to me why they'd vote YES on this abomination. But I couldn't... I would have been fired. I'm not saying I *should* be able to do so, but it was very frustrating NOT to be able to voice my opinion on the matter in the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ah. The California Constitutional issues raised by Prop 8 are explained here:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/...asses_what_now/

Now I understand a lot better.