Proposition 8 in California, 2008 page 48

1207 posts

Flag Post

Equality is a very worthwhile ideal, but what is it? Should some one be allowed to marry a brother or sister? Or what about a child, there is a case before the courts where a father is saying he is being discriminated against, by being charged, for having consensual intimate relations with his adult, (in her 20s) daughter.

 
Flag Post

It’s been a while, but Prop 8 has resurfaced, so this thread can as well.

A federal judge recently ruled that Prop 8 was uncostitutional. This issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court finds Prop 8 unconstitutional, then any gay marriage ban anywhere in the country would also be unconstitutional. Gay marriage would become legal throughout the country since it would be unconstitutional to ban it. The issue would be settled for good (at least as far as the law is concerned). About 3 years after Prop 8 passed in California, it is back in the spotlight, but now the issues surrounding it might affect the whole country.
So what are people’s opinions on this new development?

 
Flag Post

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

For Prop 8

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Against Prop 8

What is Prop 8?
If passed, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Proposition 8:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pooky:

oh my god they’re changing the definition of marriage
IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD!

seriously come on

besides change is good

wtf. hell no change isn’t (always) good. SOME change is good. Not all.

 
Flag Post

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

So, should all conservative judges recuse themselves from the case in future? It really doesn’t matter if the majority did or did not vote for prop 8 (and they did not) if the law itself is unconstitutional. You cannot expect the courts to ignore that a law is unconstitutional simply because it has public support. And it’s a little hypocritical to say that they should, given other statements you’ve made regarding the law.

 
Flag Post

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

So, should all conservative judges recuse themselves from the case in future? It really doesn’t matter if the majority did or did not vote for prop 8 (and they did not) if the law itself is unconstitutional. You cannot expect the courts to ignore that a law is unconstitutional simply because it has public support. And it’s a little hypocritical to say that they should, given other statements you’ve made regarding the law.

You are thinking in terms of the Federal Constitution and Prop 8 was the State of California’s Constitutional Amendment. They are two different documents.

And yes, the majority of voters voted for Prop 8 or it would never have passed. Our laws require a judge to recuse themselves if they think they might have interests that could be a direct conflict to the case. As he was gay and judging on a gay case the question of bias can be raised. He has since resigned his position.

 
Flag Post

Of course he is biased. He’s getting an inequality treatment.

And if it’s constitutional to discriminate based on gender, then you’ve pretty much never had the status of “land of the free”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

Yes Dark. Even though we have freedoms they are not infinite. When I say gays have the same freedoms as I do, they do. Our guaranteed rights come from the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. These are rights that cannot be legislated away directly, although I think I should send a copy of the Constitution to Obama.

We do have what are called civil rights. These are not the same as the Bill of Rights and are granted by what I would call society. These civil rights are recognized by our government but they can be changed. This is what your gay friends should be trying to change. However, they are trying to use the Constitution and they will not be able to change the document. They may be able to have a different definition from the Supreme court on some part of it, but you must remember the Supreme court leans right.

To put it bluntly, I do not believe a small percentage of minorities should be able to go against the masses and usurp their wishes on legislation by going to court and having (in California at least) liberal judges throw out the bill.

 
Flag Post

It is not a land of the free when those with the most freedoms prevent others from gaining the same.

 
Flag Post

You are thinking in terms of the Federal Constitution and Prop 8 was the State of California’s Constitutional Amendment. They are two different documents.

Both constitutions are legally binding, though, for the same reasons.

And yes, the majority of voters voted for Prop 8 or it would never have passed.

You’re mistaken, it’s the majority of people who cared enough to vote on the subject, a very different thing. Far from a majority of the people of California.

Our laws require a judge to recuse themselves if they think they might have interests that could be a direct conflict to the case. As he was gay and judging on a gay case the question of bias can be raised. He has since resigned his position.

And I repeat my question, should a conservative judge do the same? Being gay is no more an indication of a conflict of interest in this case than being conservative would be.

 
Flag Post

1. true

2. Yes, you are right, but they did vote and the legislation did pass. That is how the law works.

3. Here is where you are missing something. there are conservative gays too. Yes, if a conservative gay is confronted with a case like Prop 8, he should recuse himself too. This is judicial ethics.

Goodnight Redem

 
Flag Post

He is saying a conservative likely to be against homosexuals should also prevent himself from judging, due to being biased.

And once again, you don’t have equal freedoms.

 
Flag Post

I’ll remind you of that if the law is ever approved by a conservative court, jhco. Though how you can claim the law is valid I don’t know, it’s clearly not under the cali constitution nor under the US constitution.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

Good grief, jhco…YOU are either so biased that ya’re BLIND,,,BLIND,,,BLIND.
OR, you just haven’t the ability to understand what YOU so loudly spew (sound familiar?) about America being a REPUBLIC rather than a DEMOCRACY.

REPUBLIC versus DEMOCRACY
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

In both the Direct {ppl vote on EVERYTHING} type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution—adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment—with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

More

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights.

Just a little somthing that shows why there is such a divisiveness along party lines.

NOW, jhco…quit bending the very rules that YOU have established by saying that America IS A REPUBLIC. YOU do this “bending” by harping on how laws—specifically Prop 8 in Calif—are made and “okayed” by the MAJORITY and therefore should be “valid”….regardless of the MINORITY RIGHTS guarenteed by the CONSTITUTION.

 
Flag Post

Hey, FBB (fellow board buddies)….sorry about the double post. I had to do it so the formating would work.

AND, quit YOUR USUAL dithering in order to avoid challenges to YOUR positions. Just answer Darkruler’s question.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

jhco: I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

Even though I sincerely doubt that YOU, jhco, will even now—w/ the Flame-of-Justice-For-All burning mightily as I hold your feet to that fire—be able to “man up” and respond to this challenge to your misconception on how laws work in America….YOU will probably just ignore all of this by calling it a rant. Such is the way of a bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-American.

AND…for Gawd’s sake,,,enough w/ this “activist judges” crap. Any jurist that makes legal decisions that the bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-American disagrees is instantly slapped w/ that moniker. It is totally childish and makes ANY reasonable opposition look nothing but FOOLISH.

Our CONSTITUTION is the law-of-the-land…it protects each INDIVIDUAL’s rights from the bullying of the majority and those infernal bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-Americans.

Redem points this out:

Originally posted by Redem:

I’ll remind you of that if the law is ever approved by a conservative court, jhco. Though how you can claim the law is valid I don’t know, it’s clearly not under the cali constitution nor under the US constitution.

That is,,, approved by a lower court. Which is what this legal wrangling is all about….causing Prop 8 to become a benchmark case—of the SUPREME COURT—that will restore Gays’ right to be “married”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

This is an interesting question for jhco. Since jhco stated, “I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation….it should stand.”, I would state, should the same apply to all things?

For instance, if most people in California wanted to vote to outlaw guns, should it pass (because the people have spoken)? If not, why not?

I know you don’t hold the citizens of California themselves in high regard, but I would wonder why you are defending them and their decision-making capabilities on this particular point. It feels kind of like a fair-weather friendship.

 
Flag Post

On that note, what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. That is where it becomes dangerous. Not only does this mean that if the majority has a certain hatred towards red-heads who adopt puppies, they can vote to disallow them from ever having a driver’s license (for example). It also means that the majority doesn’t care in a bit what happens to the minority, and they don’t care in a bit that it may just as well happen to them. It is scary, because this promotes the thought of “I want to discriminate against everything and everyone, but I’m limited in my discrimination by the constitution”.

 
Flag Post

Darkruler, the very creepy thing ya say there is that it certainly DOES APPEAR to fit what jhco has laid out for us about his ideology. I know many ppl here in Kansas who spout that same shit.

This part: what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. certainly does describe his understanding of CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

Sure, we all know the Constitution isn’t “immune”….we can AMEND it.
But, that ain’t easy….and that is by design.
It is that way to keep the fools of a currently blowing ill wind from impulsively gutting the VERY BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS right out of it.

The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the Land.
ALL OTHER LAWS stem from it and must coincide w/ it.

This shit that idiot neoconservatives spout about: “show me where in the Constitution is sez…”,,, automatically disqualify them selves from even being worthy of joining what is a very serious discussion of social affairs facing America ATM.

Then, these same idiots turn right around and say that “special interest” areas that they want don’t have to be in the Constitution…..just need to have a “majority vote” and it’s a done deal. They so very easily sweep under the carpet the very purpose of the Constitution: to ensure specific human rights,,whether majority or extreme minority,,are NEVER usurped by common ignorant hateful bigotry.

This behavior is extremely selfishly child-like and it should be treated thus: Ferret it out, keep an eye on it, apply existing laws to “control//regulate” it from ever gaining any real “power”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

On that note, what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. That is where it becomes dangerous. Not only does this mean that if the majority has a certain hatred towards red-heads who adopt puppies, they can vote to disallow them from ever having a driver’s license (for example). It also means that the majority doesn’t care in a bit what happens to the minority, and they don’t care in a bit that it may just as well happen to them. It is scary, because this promotes the thought of “I want to discriminate against everything and everyone, but I’m limited in my discrimination by the constitution”.

Close Dark. The Constitution, although it can be changed with an amendment, rarely is. Under the Constitution, the people are supposed to be the government, or at least the last word. We elect representatives to take care of everyday business but if, in the case of Prop 8, a bill is brought forth to the people by the state, it is left for them (the majority of those who vote) to decide. In the case of Prop 8, the people (those who voted, or the majority of those who voted) voted to keep the definition of marriage…between a man and a woman. It would have also made an amendment to the state Constitution to insert that language.

The Federal Constitution is broad enough to include more than an individual. But what we fail to understand is that it does not separate out classes of people because it is not supposed to be used as a club to override state issues and the gay movement is a state issue. The states are “supposed” to have more power than the federal government and even that is limited.

This is why different states have different laws and each has a Constitution. Our country is set up with each state being a different entity. The Federal Government as it is now is overriding it’s power by a huge amount, taking powers the states should have.

Proposition 8 was a legal vote to put it’s dictates to work for the people who made it law. This law was overridden by a court, effectively overriding the people.

For those doubting Thomas’:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1208/Gay-marriage-Court-weighs-validity-of-Prop.-8-ruling-by-gay-judge

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/287077/

 
Flag Post

So what you’re saying is that a tyranny of the minority is acceptable as long as the constitution doesn’t disagree?

 
Flag Post

Oh, bullshit, jhco.
A person is a resident of a city, of a county, of a state, AND OF THE UNITED STATES.
Now, guess who is “at the top”?

It really DOES NOT MATTER at what level a law is made,,,,
it that law—in any way—violates the Constitution, it is subject to FEDERAL REVIEW.

Just because YOU want something to be a certain way in order to support YOUR bigoted bias….THAT doesn’t mean it is REALISTIC. YOU never answered (insert appropriate name)’s challenge to ya that if some “leftist” state were to make laws totally banning ALL guns, would THAT be okay w/ YOU?

 
Flag Post

YOU never answered (insert appropriate name)’s challenge to ya that if some “leftist” state were to make laws totally banning ALL guns, would THAT be okay w/ YOU?

I’m going to guess the only reason he would disagree that can happen is because it’s in the constitution. But it would be totally okay if it wasn’t. Which is, again, scary to hear.

 
Flag Post

It is how our laws work. The people are the last word according to our Federal Constitution. Most State Constitutions mimic the Bill of Rights of the federal document, but there after have their own laws. The Federal Constitution lays out the basic rules of how Our country works and what level of government has what responsibilities or what powers. The Bill of Rights are there to guarantee the people basic rights, protection from an overreaching federal government. States add these rights to confirm them.

Gays have the same rights, according to the Constitution as everyone else. They are citizens of the US. What gays are doing is trying to expand their rights, by laws, to gain more legislated rights than everyone else. Marriage is not protected by the federal documents, it isn’t even mentioned in them. Like I said before, it is a state level issue.

It is not a tyranny of the minority as they also have the right to vote. As everyone is equal, they have that right. It is up to them to use it instead of trying to override the popular vote. They are taking from the majority to pusue their agenda.

Here is our Constitution:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/article_index.html

These are the Federalist Papers. You can see the thinking behind our Constitution.:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

It is how our laws work. The people are the last word according to our Federal Constitution. Most State Constitutions mimic the Bill of Rights of the federal document, but there after have their own laws. The Federal Constitution lays out the basic rules of how Our country works and what level of government has what responsibilities or what powers. The Bill of Rights are there to guarantee the people basic rights, protection from an overreaching federal government. States add these rights to confirm them.

Pretty much “accurate” so far. That is IF ya understand that ""the people are the last word.."" to NOT MEAN a majority of actually HAVE THE LAST WORD…as via some shitty law like denying Gays the right to marry.

Gays have the same rights, according to the Constitution as everyone else. They are citizens of the US. What gays are doing is trying to expand their rights, by laws, to gain more legislated rights than everyone else.

What on earth are YOU talking about? Who is filling YOUR HEAD w/ this shit? Are YOU actually THAT DENSE that YOU are unable to understand basic govt.? Just because BIGOTED, HATEFUL, INTOLERANT, HATEFUL neoconservatives are soooooooo afraid they will “lose” something if Gays “gain” something—something that YOU admit is a right (by merely being an American) in the first place—that they go beserk and run around like the sky is falling.

Marriage is not protected by the federal documents, it isn’t even mentioned in them.

OH, YES IT IS.
And, please…Please…PLEASE, can ya drop this crap about: ""it’s NOT in the Constitution"". It’s there, jhco, as in all laws—at ANY LEVEL of govt.—that have been made UNDER THE CONSTITUTION’s established SUPREME LAW of the land.

Like I said before, it is a state level issue.

NO…like we have been trying to drill into that closed mind of yours: AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVT.,,the laws made HAVT TO PASS the litmus test of being CONSTITUTIONALY LEGAL. Now, just how hard is THAT to understand? High schoolers do.

It is not a tyranny of the minority as they also have the right to vote. As everyone is equal, they have that right. It is up to them to use it instead of trying to override the popular vote.

The RIGHTEOUS minority doesn’t have to do a fucking thing…other than contest a bad law in a Federal Court as being against their CIVIL RIGHTS. It is the CONSTITUTION that will override ANY wrongful popular vote that is contested in the proper higher court.

They are taking from the majority to pusue their agenda.

They are taking NOTHING from the fucking “majority”….which just might not be as much “majority” as YOU want to believe. AND, Gay’s “agenda” is to be treated fairly, equally, and have the SAME RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Here is our Constitution, You can see the thinking behind our Constitution.>

YES, we can see it perfectly.
It is YOU who can’t…
WHY? Because YOU want to twist the truth to fit your BIGOTED, HOMOPHOBIC agenda.