Instead they seemed satisfied that that the court had agreed to fast-track the case by scheduling oral arguments for December 6, 2010.
“We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,” said Attorney Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team. “Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books.”
Loyola Law Professor Richard Hasen told the LA Times Monday that he views the order as strategically advantageous for supporters of same-sex marriage. “If the panel had refused to place a hold on Walker’s ruling, the supporters of Proposition 8 were prepared to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The court is believed to be divided on the question of gay marriage, with Justice Anthony Kennedy considered a swing vote. A vote on a hold might have pushed the justices into taking an early position on the question,” the LA Times reported.
“I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay,” said Hasen, an expert on federal court stays. “The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion.”
Hasen said the hold “takes the heat” off Kennedy and takes the case “off the front burner for a while.”
However, Professor Hasen also told the Sacramento Bee that the 9th Circuit has a history of being slow and deliberative with its decisions, and despite the expedited time line, it might not be until late 2011 or early 2012 when it renders a decision.
Supporters of same-sex marriage seemed to take an analytic and long-term view on Monday.
California Assembly Speaker John Perez said Monday, “Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel is consistent with the fact that groundbreaking decisions are often stayed, pending appeal. The fact that the Court is expediting the hearing schedule only underscores the point Judge Walker made in his ruling: LGBT Californians have suffered, and are suffering, from having our constitutional right to equal protection and due process violated every moment Prop 8 remains in effect.”
He continued, “This ruling is a reflection on established legal convention, and in no way diminishes the powerful and eloquent statement in defense of our constitutional rights Judge Walker made in his ruling.”
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a long-time supporter of the cause, was also circumspect on Monday. “While today’s Ninth Circuit Court ruling is a disappointment for many of us who agree with Judge Walker’s decision that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional,” the Mayor said. “I am heartened by the Court’s decision to resolve the appeal on an expedited schedule. Today, I am more confident than ever that justice and equal rights under the law will ultimately prevail.”
Proponents of Proposition 8 also applauded the ruling.
“California voters spoke clearly on Prop. 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.
The twist now becomes one of standing. The 9th Circuit panel, which includes a conservative, a moderate, and a liberal, indicated that the court has serious questions about the standing of Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling regarding the constitutionality of the ban.
ProtectMarriage has now been ordered to address why it believes it has legal authority to appeal. Under ordinary conditions, only those directly impacted by a judge’s order can appeal. The Governor and Attorney General have refused to appeal and instead called for same-sex marriages to resume as soon as possible.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has come under fire for refusing to defend Prop 8, and has argued that he has no legal duty to defend a law he bleieves is in violation of the US Constitution.
So the issue will now resume in December and it likely will end up decided in the Supreme Court by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion.”
“So the issue will now resume in December and it likely will end up decided in the Supreme Court by Justice Anthony Kennedy.”
It is more probable that the Nov. elections will put more Governors and legislators at the State and National level in place who are opposed to changing the definition of marriage. This measure of public sentiment will not go unnoticed by the Appellate and Supreme Courts,most especially Judge Kennedy. His judicial history on the US Supreme Court,while sympathetic to denial of substantive rights to same-sex couples, suggests that he will refuse to be the one who casts the deciding vote,at this time, to change the definition of marriage for the USA.
Dictionary definitions are entirely irrelevant in this debate. If Gene wants to define marriage as “one man + one woman,” no one is going to stop him. If someone else says marriage is “one woman + one woman,” no one will stop her. Getting caught up over language is pointless.
The actual question the Supreme Court is going to decide is whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment is applicable? That is, if a state affords legal privileges to Unrelated Consenting Adult Adam and Unrelated Consenting Adult Beth when they join in wedlock, can it legally deny those same privileges to Unrelated Consenting Adult Chuck and Unrelated Consenting Adult Doug when they join in wedlock?
As you know, there is nothing stopping Chuck and Doug from getting married now. There are thousands of ministers and others who will perform their wedding ceremony. The question is ultimately one of legal privileges afforded to married couples by the government. If the state recognizes some marriages and grants privileges to them but denies others because the couple in question is of the same gender, the Supreme Court is going to have to decide if that is a denial of that gay couple’s 14th Amendment rights.
I don’t know how the SCOTUS will come down on this question. What I do know is that the people who oppose gay marriage are generally (for reasons of religion or tradition) prejudiced against gays as a class*. That is, those against gay marriage are in a general sense againts gays. And I also know that in general, the older someone is, the more likely he is to be anti-gay and the younger he is the less likely he is to be anti-gay.
The overwhelming majority of Americans under 35 are in favor of gay marriage. The percentage of our population which is anti-gay is shrinnking year by year. It soon will be a minority view everywhere. So no matter what the Supreme Court says in 2012 when it decides this case, every state in the next 20 or so years will approve laws which permit gay marriage. Of that, I have no doubt.
*The folks who hate gays (assuming they are not gay themselves) tend to mistakenly think sexual orientation is a matter of choice or a character flaw. They are more likely to mistakenly think that through some kind of therapy gays can be reformed into becoming straight. And they are more likely to think that gays present a great danger to children. These beliefs derive from thousands of years of religious prejudice and handed-down ignorance.
As a straight male, who never had to be told in any sense to be sexually attracted to females, it baffles me to think there are people who are so confused as to thinking that any man would ever be gay out of a choice or out of some kind of character flaw.
The Lessons of History[1]
Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.
——————————————————————————–
[1]Durant, W. and A. Durant. 1968. The Lessons of History, Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y. 117p. (citation (pp.35-36) edited for continuity and inclusivity without altering content).
I really just wish that the bloody united states of america would propel itself into the 21st century..
instead of the world following our lead, we are following the world’s lead. there are so many other countries that have legalied gay marriage, yet violent vitriolic forces that be feel the desperate need to insert wedge issues left right and center, for the mere sake of dividing, conquering and enslaving.
MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL…
please America, let’s move forward,lest we find ourselve like some archaic country like say….Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women, gays, and people of color are used to control vicious ideologies lurking within the subtext of every genetically modified human…
if we continue on this path or ignorance and hate, MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO RAPE OUR RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR, DEMAND A TAX CREDIT, AND STIFF US WITH THE BILL TO CLEAN UP THE MESS….
FOR EXAMPLE..BP…SHELL, HALLIBURTON, MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, ETC ETC ETC ETC AGENT ORANGE, DOW CHEMICAL, ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC…
WE ARE BEING POISONED, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND IDEOLOGICALLY..
WE HAVE BECOME SO DUMB, THAT WE DON’T KNOW HOW DUMB WE’VE BECOME…
WAKE UP PPL
WAKE UP!!!!!
DAVISVILLE IS MONSANTOVILLE
Indigo… the correct quote is ” the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”
You seem to have serious anger issues… please get help…
anyone know?…not a rhetorical question
Wouldn’t a 9th circuit court decision declaring prop 8 unconstitutional also make it unconstitutional in other western states which now also have constitutional amendments and laws passed by their legislatures defining marriage as between a man and a woman? I would guess that these state’s Attorney Generals would demand to be part of the argument before the 9th circuit and would have standing in this case.
[i]”Wouldn’t a 9th circuit court decision declaring prop 8 unconstitutional also make it unconstitutional in other western states which now also have constitutional amendments and laws passed by their legislatures defining marriage as between a man and a woman?”[/i]
That’s a good question. The reverse of your question is clearer on its face: That is, if the 9th Circuit rules that Prop 8 passes Constitutional muster, that would not affect state laws in any of the other states covered by the 9th — Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona, as well as Guam and the Northern Marianas — because all that would be saying is that California’s law is valid for California.
It’s also clear that if the SCOTUS ultimately decides against Prop 8 — that states or territories which give privileges in the case of straight marriages but deny those privileges to married gays is a violation of the Equal Proetection Clause — that would apply to all 50 states, DC and all U.S territories.
My guess is that since this is a federal case — that is, the question regards the U.S. Constitution and not just state matters — that [i]every state and territory in the 9th Circuit would be affected if the 9th rules that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and rules that any laws which prohibit giving marriage privileges to gays while giving them to straights are unconstitutional[/i]. As such, if Idaho has passed a ban on gay marriage (or some such thing), that law would be overturned by this case.
However, laws in states outside the purview of the 9th Circuit would not be affected until the SCOTUS ruled on the question. I would think then the most likely course is that, if the 9th overturns Prop 8, it would be immediately appealed to the SCOTUS and that another hold would be put on the decision until the SCOTUS ultimately made its decision.
A most interesting possibility — though unlikely — is if the 9th overturns Prop 8 but the SCOTUS decides against hearing an appeal on that decision. That would mean, I think, that for the 9 states and 2 territories in the 9th, gay marriage would be a constitutional right, but in all other states (save Massachusetts) it would not be. We might then see a stampede of gay cowboys from South Dakota rushing into Montana and Idaho to get married.
rich rifkin: “What I do know is that the people who oppose gay marriage are generally (for reasons of religion or tradition) prejudiced against gays as a class*. That is, those against gay marriage are in a general sense againts gays. And I also know that in general, the older someone is, the more likely he is to be anti-gay and the younger he is the less likely he is to be anti-gay.
The overwhelming majority of Americans under 35 are in favor of gay marriage.”
With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), what makes you the arbiter of all things right and relevant? You don’t speak for me…
[i]”With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), [b]what makes you[/b] the arbiter of all things right and relevant?”[/i]
ALL polling data confirms that those who are against legalizing gay marriage are generally prejudiced against gays. The most religious are the most anti-gay; the least prejudiced are athiests. The older the more prejudiced; the younger the less prejudiced. I don’t have any idea why you think quoting these facts makes me an arbiter of any sort.
There are recent polls which suggest a majority of Americans favor allowing gay marriage ([url]http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/cnn-poll-is-first-to-show-majority.html[/url]). That never was the case in the past. The direction of change on this issue reflects older generations passing on and their attitudes being replaced by younger, less prejudiced generations.
In 2002, a National Opinion Research Center survey ([url]http://volokh.com/posts/1124468214.shtml[/url]) found that attitudes toward homosexuals had changed substantially since 1973 when the same questions were asked. Most notably was the change among those under age 45. If you compare the 2002 data with that of 2010, you will see that the changing American views on homosexuals and gay marriage have continued in the same direction, where more and more are less anti-gay.
Those generally against gays tend to think homosexuals are immoral. They are also more likely to think that through some kind of therapy gays can be reformed into becoming straight.
Further, the polls show that (in general) people 18-29 are less anti-gay than people 30-49 and people 50-64 are less anti-gay than people 65+. The people who are most anti-gay are those over 65+. The support for and opposition to gay marriage follows these same views based on age. That might cause you, Elaine, to call me “an aribter of all things right and relevant.” But, honey, the facts are the facts no matter what names you want to call me.
From Pew (2009): [quote] Overall, a strong majority of those who attend (religious) services at least weekly oppose same-sex marriage (71%), while about half of those who seldom or never attend religious services favor it (54%).
Public opinion on this issue also varies according to age, sex, race and education. Most young people (ages 18-29) favor same-sex marriage (58%), while majorities in older age groups oppose it.
Nearly half of the public (49%) says homosexual behavior is morally wrong, while 9% say it is morally acceptable and 35% say it is not a moral issue.
At least half of those ages 30 and older say homosexuality is wrong, compared with fewer than four-in-ten (38%) among those under age 30. And a slim majority of Americans with a high school education or less see homosexual behavior as morally wrong (55%), compared with fewer than half among those with a college degree (40%) or some college education (46%).
Assessments of morality are divided sharply along partisan lines. For example, three-quarters of conservative Republicans say homosexual behavior is wrong. By contrast, nearly as many liberal Democrats (70%) say either that homosexuality is morally acceptable (13%) or that it is not a moral issue (57%).
Among religious groups, 76% of white evangelical Protestants and 65% of black Protestants believe homosexuality is morally wrong; mainline Protestants (40%), Catholics (39%) and the unaffiliated (29%) are much less likely to take this view. Views also differ markedly by level of worship service attendance. Overall, two-thirds of those who attend services at least weekly say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared with 43% of those who attend services monthly or yearly and 31% of those who seldom or never attend. The same is true within religious traditions. For example, among Catholics, a slim majority of weekly Mass attenders (53%) say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, while among those who attend less often, a majority (65%) say it is not a moral issue or is morally acceptable.
Americans who see homosexual behavior as morally wrong are much less supportive of same-sex marriage and civil unions than are those who believe such behavior is morally acceptable or is not a moral issue. Only 11% of those who say homosexual behavior is morally wrong favor same-sex marriage, compared with 70% of those who have no moral objection to homosexual behavior.
Younger people perceive more discrimination against gays and lesbians than their elders: 80% of those under 30 say there is a lot of discrimination against gays and lesbians, compared with roughly six-in-ten of those ages 30 to 64 and just over half those age 65 and older (54%). [/quote]
“At least half of those ages 30 and older say homosexuality is wrong, compared with fewer than four-in-ten (38%) among those under age 30”
A paraphrasing of one of Mark Twain’s famous observations about the “human condition” is relevent here and goes something like how amazed he was to discover that his father had become so much “smarter” in the 10 years between Mark Twain’s 20th and 30th birthdays.
So, davisite, do I read this to understand that you believe that it is “smarter” to say homosexuality is wrong?
No Don, I was not referencing the “wrongness” of homosexuality which is NOT the reason that I believe and,IMO,along with probably about @30% of CA voters who voted for Prop 8, that having a different phrase,(not different substantive constitutional rights) for same-sex unions is appropriate, leaving the cultural/societal meaning of marriage intact. My Mark Twain observation speaks to my own personal observation that, from my current vantage point looking back on my beliefs from late teens to 30, I didn’t know “sh..t from Shinola” about so many aspects of life. It is not at all unlikely that many of those under 30 who believe now that changing the definition of marriage is a meaningless,trivial matter would feel differently with a few decades of “life” under their belts.
The majority of “older generations” have always failed to appreciate the benefit more social inclusion, with examples being-
religious tollerance
all sorts of women’s rights
racial integration
Young people are more tolerant socially because generally they have had more opportunities to live in a mixed culture – school, media and social networking. Perhaps they are smarter about this because they have more experience.
Traditional thinking is not always the smartest way to go. When you really think about it what is gained by preventing selected people from getting married? There is no benefit so get smart and move on!
[i]”Young people are more tolerant socially because generally they have had more opportunities to live in a mixed culture – school, media and social networking.”[/i]
Alphonso makes a good point. One thing the polling data shows is that non-gays who are younger have had far more social interaction with people they know who are gay than older people say they have. This distinction is even found when answering the question, “Are there any gays in your family?” Older people have a much higher negative response rate to that question. It’s obviously because fewer gays have “come out” to them.
I had a roommate in college who was gay, but I didn’t know it. (In hindsight, it was obvious. But homosexuality was so out of my realm of consciousness back then that Mike being attracted to males never occurred to me once.) If I were in college today, he would have been open about his being gay. I imagine every student at UCD knows someone who is gay and out of the closet.
I believe that is what is driving the reduction in anti-gay feelings among younger people–social integration. The strongest anti-gay feeling expressed on this blog are notably made by the two of the oldest posters.
One of them, at least is caught up in nonsense like “changing the definition of marriage,” as if definitions are important when it comes to basic civil rights.
Older people tend to be more homophobic in part because in their formative years most gays were still in the closet about that. But since the last 25-30 years, gays tend to admit that they are gay. That has allowed those of us who are straight to see gays as just another part of our community and as people who deserve to be treated on their own merits. But for many older people, gays are just people they don’t know and don’t understand. That ignorance plus religious prejudice results in anti-gay feelings, opposition to gays in the military, opposition to gay marriage and so on. As time marches on, these older folks will fade away and most Americans will accept that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else.
A paraphrasing of one of Mark Twain’s famous observations about the “human condition” is relevent here and goes something like how amazed he was to discover that his father had become so much “smarter” in the 10 years between Mark Twain’s 20th and 30th birthdays.
Smarter with respect to what? Social issues or supporting a household?
Probably also just as wise to apply it to yourself as much as to others.
Probably also just as wise to apply it to yourself as much as to others.
Meaning, after ten more years (regardless of current age), we could all be wiser about this issue.
Older people tend to be more homophobic in part because in their formative years most gays were still in the closet about that. But since the last 25-30 years, gays tend to admit that they are gay. That has allowed those of us who are straight to see gays as just another part of our community and as people who deserve to be treated on their own merits. But for many older people, gays are just people they don’t know and don’t understand. That ignorance plus religious prejudice results in anti-gay feelings, opposition to gays in the military, opposition to gay marriage and so on. As time marches on, these older folks will fade away and most Americans will accept that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Agreed! Probably when one knows a number of homosexuals in everyday life, then the concept really isn’t the perverted freakshow that some seem to think.
Interesting… those who cite “polls” disagree with a matter that had been voted on at the polls. That aside, I respect committed relationships, particularly those that last until the passing of one of the ‘partners’ whether they are “gay” (a word “co-opted” when it used to mean exuberantly happy, but then “faggot” was either a cigarette or a piece of wood used in a fire… funny how one perfectly good word was espoused [pardon the pun] and the other becomes “hate speech” both in the name of “gay rights”) or ‘heterosexual’ marriage. In my opinion, if “gay marriage” is approved/upheld, then those relationships must have the same ‘consequences’ re: divorce/child support(who is the biological father/mother) that our current definitions require for marriage. It is not clear that this is what is proposed by those advocating “gay marriage”.
I say these things with a background of having worked with & been close personal friends with, those who are gay/lesbian, and have viewed them as valued friends/co-workers, although I remain unconvinced that it is a “biological imperative”.
[i] I remain unconvinced that it is a “biological imperative”. [/i]
You have said of what you are unconvinced. Of what are you convinced?
then those relationships must have the same ‘consequences’ re: divorce/child support(who is the biological father/mother) that our current definitions require for marriage.
Absolutely. I think that is a clear potential consequence.
It is not clear that this is what is proposed by those advocating “gay marriage”.
Well, I’m not at the “vanguard” of this movement, but it seems very clear to me. It just seems a little pointless to get hung up on the minutiae of divorce arrangements if we can’t even get an agreement on same-sex marriage; marriage, which is the precursor to divorce.
If you’re pro-family, support of same-sex marriages oughta be an obvious slam dunk.
I say these things with a background of having worked with & been close personal friends with, those who are gay/lesbian, and have viewed them as valued friends/co-workers, although I remain unconvinced that it is a “biological imperative”.
What do you mean by biological imperative? Whether being gay or not is a choice or something you’re sort of born with?
Have you asked your close personal gay/lesbian friends about whether it is a biological imperative or not? What was their answer?
rich rifkin: “ALL polling data confirms that those who are against legalizing gay marriage are generally prejudiced against gays. The most religious are the most anti-gay; the least prejudiced are athiests. The older the more prejudiced; the younger the less prejudiced. I don’t have any idea why you think quoting these facts makes me an arbiter of any sort.”
Since when are opinion polls FACT?
rich rifkin: “There are recent polls which suggest a majority of Americans favor allowing gay marriage.”
A recent vote made it clear a majority of Californians are against gay marriage – that is a FACT.
[i]”A recent vote made it clear a majority of Californians are against gay marriage – that is a FACT.”[/i]
That is not a fact.
First, the polls I quoted were scientific samples. They have error rates and thus it’s important to look at multiple polls.
Second, you are mixing up two things: you say “a majority of Californians are against gay marriage” because of the Prop 8 vote. That is not certain. The fact is that “a majority of California [b]voters[/b] were against gay marriage.”
One thing we know about people who vote is that the older you are the more likely you are to turn out (as a general rule). Because there is a difference between older people (who are most likely to be anti-gay) and younger people (less likely to be anti-gay), the vote and public opinion are at odds.
Polling on the issue of gay marriage will inevitably be inaccurate as the pressure of political correctness and the reflex accusation of bigotry and homophobia that is launched against them tends to stifle expression of their true opinion.
“The fact is that “a majority of California voters were against gay marriage.”
…was it Woody Allen who offered a serious observation in Civics noting that “In a democracy, policy is determined by those who “show up”(vote)”?
davisite2: “…was it Woody Allen who offered a serious observation in Civics noting that “In a democracy, policy is determined by those who “show up”(vote)”?”
If those who support gay marriage so believe in the cause and/or are in the majority, then why didn’t they show up and vote at the polls?
Rich Rifkin: “First, the polls I quoted were scientific samples.”
LOL
I’m sure hefty majorities in any number of states supported laws against miscegenation. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and unfortunately it has often required intervention by the federal government to enforce the rights of individuals against curtailment at the state level.
Let’s cut to the chase for ERM and davisite: why do you oppose gay marriage?
‘Individual rights are not subject to a public vote…’
I truly wish that someone would explain,in some detail, not just proclaim it so, what “right” under the constitution is violated when same-sex couple “civil unions” with full and equal SUBSTANTIVE rights that are offered to couples defined to be a “marriage”, are denied the opportunity to be referred to, in government documents, as a “marriage”.
Since there are clear distinguishing characteristics between the two, it seems perfectly reasonable to have two distinguishing terms to designate them.
davisite: that isn’t what was put before the California voters, so it is irrelevant. Why do you oppose gay marriage?
Don Shor… While I cannot readily recall what the wording of prop 8 was, I thought that Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman… nothing more.
My opposition is to offering constitutional protection to force all governmental references to the institution of same-sex unions then to be referred to as a “marriage”. My opposition hinges on an argument that did not “carry the day” with the CA Supreme Court although we do not know by what margin it failed to convince the judges.. all we know is that the final decision, if I remember correctly, was 3-2. The argument that I am referring to is, that given that I believe that there is no constitutional civil right being abridged by offering civil-unions exact equivalent rights to what is now defined as “marriage”, the argument that I am referring to is that the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage in our society/culture has a value that is important enough to allow for the definition to remain intact.
Don.. While I understand that the issue of full and equal substantive rights was not part of Prop 8, the remedy was not to ask the Supreme Court to redefine “marriage” but to take any rights that were being denied to civil-unions to court for redress. The CA Supreme Court would,in all probability, have agreed with their argument and ordered the legislature to correct these inequities if civil-unions in CA were to be constitutionally acceptable. This approach was not taken and I can only assume that equal substantive rights was not sufficient. The plan appears to have been to use the courts to intervene and assist in a strategy to change societal values.
The wording of Prop 8 is not hard to find. Here it is, in its entirety: “Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
I asked the simple question: why do you oppose gay marriage. The answer you gave at 5:46, to paraphrase, is that heterosexual marriage is the traditional definition of the word. You seem to believe that separate but equal provision for civil union takes care of the problem; i.e., a Plessy v Ferguson view of gay, um, — what will we call it if it isn’t gay marriage?
“…the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage in our society/culture has a value that is important enough to allow for the definition to remain intact.” So you don’t think that there is any specific harm caused by the practice of gay marriage. You are just saying, “it has always been, thus it should always be.”
“I can only assume that equal substantive rights was not sufficient.” They weren’t proposed by the supporters of Prop 8. The supporters of gay marriage weren’t the ones dealing the hand here.
“The plan appears to have been to use the courts to intervene and assist in a strategy to change societal values.” What plan? Again, the supporters of gay marriage didn’t put Prop 8 on the ballot and didn’t choose the wording. There has never been any effort that I’m aware of to find common ground or compromise on this issue by those opposed to gay marriages. They seem to be the ones who went all out to try to establish heterosexual marriage as the law of the land, probably recognizing that time is against them on this issue.
“My opposition is to offering constitutional protection to force all governmental references to the institution of same-sex unions then to be referred to as a “marriage“.”
Why would you not want gays to have the same protections as other married couples?
Don: I’m afraid that I can accept little of your mis- paraphrasing of my replies or apparently totally ignoring what I actually said, i.e. You are just saying, “it has always been, thus it should always be.”
NO, I said that I believed that it is an important societal value NOW and into the FUTURE. Like others whom I have “crossed swords” here on this issue,IMO, you make distinctions without difference, such as not recognizing that the wording of Prop 8 that I wrote,while not verbatim, means functionally exactly the same thing as the wording you presented. As to the argument that gay supporters did not put Prop 8 on the ballot, Prop 8 was a RESPONSE to CA Supreme Court’s acceptance of the argument that was put before them, that marriage was to be redefined to include same-sex unions. Prop 8,as worded, would not have been offered if the plaintiffs had come to the Supreme Court to obtain full and equal civil-union rights. I could go on to refute your “no compromise” argument and the total reversal of my position on offering “the same protections” to same-sex UNIONS, not MARRIAGES but, I’m afraid that it would be fruitless.
You’re right: at this point I have no idea exactly what you support or oppose. So let’s try simple yes or no answers.
Do you support gay marriage?
Do you support giving gay couples exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage, but not calling it marriage?
Do you believe that changing the word “marriage” to include homosexual unions will have any specific harm to any group?
Do you believe that withholding the word “marriage” from any union of homosexual couples will have any specific harm to any group?
Not yes or no, but simple answers:
Who do you believe is responsible for the wording of the Proposition 8?
And finally, once again: assuming that you answer ‘yes’ to my first question: why do you oppose gay marriage?
“Do you support giving gay couples exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage, but not calling it marriage?
Do you believe that changing the word “marriage” to include homosexual unions will have any specific harm to any group?”
Who do you believe is responsible for the wording of the Proposition 8?
Don: I believe that I fully answered your questions but I will simply respond to those which, IMO, really covers all the others.
I support the State sanctioning the category of civil-unions with exactly the same rights as are offered to the State’s marriage designation.
I do not identify any particular group as being harmed by the State redefining the meaning of “marriage” but rather the “harm”(and of course, this is my judgement-call as it is the personal judgement-call of EVERY CA voter once the issue of the legitimacy of claiming some substantive civil right is dismissed)that it does to all of us as a society. My description of this “harm” to societal values and cohesiveness, issues of oppressive political correctness and what tolerance of diversity means would require more time and space than we have here.
I do not know who wrote Prop 8. What I do know is that it does not call for what the most strident anti-gay groups would have wanted it to say, i.e., that the State does not officially sanction same-sex civil-unions. If it had,IMO, it would never have gotten a majority vote of the CA electorate.