As a consent agenda item for Tuesday’s Davis City Council meeting, the Davis City Council will likely unanimously support a resolution to join an amicus brief petition to the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8. Davis will join a growing list of cities that lack the resources to directly sue to challenge the adoption of Proposition as as the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles did the day after the election.
On November 5, 2008 San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Council Anne 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.
According to Davis’ City Staff Report:
The petition argues that since Proposition 8 emanates from an initiative petition it is invalid because it effects a revision rather than an amendment to the constitution. The initiative process may propose only amendments not revisions. For this reason the petition asks the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.
Numerous other cities and counties have since joined this action.
This is not the first time the city of Davis has gotten involved in this issue. According to the City Staff report, in October of 2007,
“the city of Davis joined in an amicus curiae brief written by Stephen Lewis of the West Hollywood City Attorney’s Office, that cities and counties filed in support of San Francisco in the Marriage cases in which the California Supreme Court struck down the ban against same sex marriages relying on due process, equal protection and privacy grounds. In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008). Mr. Lewis will again be authoring an amicus curiae brief in support of Petitioners position in this case. The amicus curiae brief will be due on January 15, 2008. The Council also passed a resolution against Proposition 8 in September of this year.”
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herra wrote the following upon the filing of the suit on November 5:
“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.”
The staff report on the Council Agenda includes the following information provided by Burk Deventhal, who is Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco.
“The petition argues that the California Constitution does not allow a bare majority of voters to use the amendment process to divest a politically disfavored group of its fundamental right under the California Constitution to equal protection of the laws. Such a sweeping redefinition of equal protection would require a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment. Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides different vehicles for amending and revising the Constitution. Article XVIII allows a solitary citizen, without any public deliberation or review, to draft and circulate an initiative petition to amend the Constitution. But, only the Legislature or a constitutional convention of popularly elected delegates may submit proposed revisions to the Constitution. And the Constitution further circumscribes even the Legislature’s power to submit to the voters either a proposed a constitutional revision or a proposal to call for constitutional convention. In either case the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature.
Proposition 8 provides a compelling example of the reason for the California Constitution’s distinction between proposed amendments and revisions. The Constitution requires substantially more process receding the submission to the electorate of revisions because the consequences of a revision can be so much more pervasive and far reaching than the consequences of mere amendments. Proposition 8 is such a pervasive and far reaching measure. Not only does it strip from an unpopular minority its fundamental right to equal protection by enshrining discrimination in the Constitution. Proposition 8 also prevents the courts from exercising their historically significant power to protect unpopular minorities from discrimination. For that reason we argue that a bare majority of the voters without the benefit of the process that precedes a revision may not approve such fundamental and pervasive changes as those proposed in Proposition 8.”
This is the issue that was talked about directly after the election the fact that with the court’s definition of this issue as a substantive right, the question of whether a simple majority of the public can vote to deny someone of a substantive right–or would such an action require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature as well.
Supporters of Proposition 8, argue that this is simply a matter of majority rule and that the majority has spoken. I have great support for democratic principles of majority rule, however, I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The produces a tyranny of the majority.
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51:
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
Madison continued with the solution to this quandary:
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Our system of checks and balances were intentionally designed to thwart the tyranny of the majority. However, the founders realized that was not sufficient and thus they developed the Bill of Rights to further protect the rights of people against the inclination of the majority to take away rights from the minority. In Marbury vs. Madison, the court recognized the need for judicial review and since that point the courts have sporadically been used as a check against the tyranny of the majority whether it be a majority of government official or a majority of the voters.
The court faces three questions.
1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
The city’s resolution is very basic suggesting that the voters passed Proposition in November of 2008, a number of entities have filed suit to stop it, the city of Davis joined in an amicus petition in October of 2007 and passed resolution against Proposition 8 in September of 2008, and finally the City and County of San Francisco is asking for communities to consider joining an amicus petition.
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that the City Attorney, on behalf of the city of Davis, is directed to participate in the filing of an amicus brief to join the challenge filed by the City and County of San Francisco, et al.”
Remember according to the staff report, there is no fiscal impact to the city. Davis thus follows cities like Berkeley which chose not to actually sue because it has much more limited financial resources than San Francisco and Los Angeles.
I am less than certain that this should have been a consent agenda item, however, I do think this is something the city of Davis should do. Unlike resolutions against the war, Proposition 8 has a direct impact on the city, the county, and the citizens over whom the city governs. Moreover, joining in an amicus brief is more than a mere symbolic action. This seems like a no-brainer, although the 20% of the citizens who voted for Proposition 8 probably will not agree.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The City of Davis gets to speak on my behalf about proposition 8 as if I’m not entitled to my own opinion.
The City of Davis gets to speak on my behalf about proposition 8 as if I’m not entitled to my own opinion.
The City of Davis gets to speak on my behalf about proposition 8 as if I’m not entitled to my own opinion.
The City of Davis gets to speak on my behalf about proposition 8 as if I’m not entitled to my own opinion.
80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8. In that sense, majority does rule. You are always welcome to file your own brief in favor of Prop 8 and against the suit.
80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8. In that sense, majority does rule. You are always welcome to file your own brief in favor of Prop 8 and against the suit.
80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8. In that sense, majority does rule. You are always welcome to file your own brief in favor of Prop 8 and against the suit.
80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8. In that sense, majority does rule. You are always welcome to file your own brief in favor of Prop 8 and against the suit.
“80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8.”
So what!!! I wouldn’t care if 99.999999999% (minus myself) voted against it!
The City does not have authority to decide proposition 8!! What are we saying!! A few city council should take priority over voters!
In that sense, majority does rule.
If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.
You people only want democracy when you get your way at the ballot box, which pretty much means you don’t want it at all.
“80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8.”
So what!!! I wouldn’t care if 99.999999999% (minus myself) voted against it!
The City does not have authority to decide proposition 8!! What are we saying!! A few city council should take priority over voters!
In that sense, majority does rule.
If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.
You people only want democracy when you get your way at the ballot box, which pretty much means you don’t want it at all.
“80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8.”
So what!!! I wouldn’t care if 99.999999999% (minus myself) voted against it!
The City does not have authority to decide proposition 8!! What are we saying!! A few city council should take priority over voters!
In that sense, majority does rule.
If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.
You people only want democracy when you get your way at the ballot box, which pretty much means you don’t want it at all.
“80 percent of your fellow Davisites voted against Prop 8.”
So what!!! I wouldn’t care if 99.999999999% (minus myself) voted against it!
The City does not have authority to decide proposition 8!! What are we saying!! A few city council should take priority over voters!
In that sense, majority does rule.
If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.
You people only want democracy when you get your way at the ballot box, which pretty much means you don’t want it at all.
You’re right they don’t have authority to “decide” prop 8. They do have authority to file an amicus brief.
You’re right they don’t have authority to “decide” prop 8. They do have authority to file an amicus brief.
You’re right they don’t have authority to “decide” prop 8. They do have authority to file an amicus brief.
You’re right they don’t have authority to “decide” prop 8. They do have authority to file an amicus brief.
“I have great support for democratic principles of majority rule,”
only when it suits your own purposes. When Obama gets in, that is when it is okay, but when the voters approve of something you don’t agree with, it is not.
however, I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The produces a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to tyranny of the minority, which is what you want.
“I have great support for democratic principles of majority rule,”
only when it suits your own purposes. When Obama gets in, that is when it is okay, but when the voters approve of something you don’t agree with, it is not.
however, I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The produces a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to tyranny of the minority, which is what you want.
“I have great support for democratic principles of majority rule,”
only when it suits your own purposes. When Obama gets in, that is when it is okay, but when the voters approve of something you don’t agree with, it is not.
however, I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The produces a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to tyranny of the minority, which is what you want.
“I have great support for democratic principles of majority rule,”
only when it suits your own purposes. When Obama gets in, that is when it is okay, but when the voters approve of something you don’t agree with, it is not.
however, I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The produces a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to tyranny of the minority, which is what you want.
Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.
Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.
Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.
Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.
“If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.”
I would argue you are confusing two different concepts of majority rule. In one case the argument is that the majority cannot vote to take away rights in the other case you are simply conferring from a voted record of the populace and arguing that the council has the legitimacy to speak on this issue based in part of the vote of the people. Those are two very different arguments.
You are arguing that I support a tyranny of the minority–what do you consider the constitution to be. The framers intentionally set that up to make it possible for a minority to prevent changes and they set it up to allow the courts to act as a check on the power of the majority. Your view does not square with the conception and design of our government.
“If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.”
I would argue you are confusing two different concepts of majority rule. In one case the argument is that the majority cannot vote to take away rights in the other case you are simply conferring from a voted record of the populace and arguing that the council has the legitimacy to speak on this issue based in part of the vote of the people. Those are two very different arguments.
You are arguing that I support a tyranny of the minority–what do you consider the constitution to be. The framers intentionally set that up to make it possible for a minority to prevent changes and they set it up to allow the courts to act as a check on the power of the majority. Your view does not square with the conception and design of our government.
“If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.”
I would argue you are confusing two different concepts of majority rule. In one case the argument is that the majority cannot vote to take away rights in the other case you are simply conferring from a voted record of the populace and arguing that the council has the legitimacy to speak on this issue based in part of the vote of the people. Those are two very different arguments.
You are arguing that I support a tyranny of the minority–what do you consider the constitution to be. The framers intentionally set that up to make it possible for a minority to prevent changes and they set it up to allow the courts to act as a check on the power of the majority. Your view does not square with the conception and design of our government.
“If you believed the majority should rule, then you would accept the decision that the majority made on Nov 4th.”
I would argue you are confusing two different concepts of majority rule. In one case the argument is that the majority cannot vote to take away rights in the other case you are simply conferring from a voted record of the populace and arguing that the council has the legitimacy to speak on this issue based in part of the vote of the people. Those are two very different arguments.
You are arguing that I support a tyranny of the minority–what do you consider the constitution to be. The framers intentionally set that up to make it possible for a minority to prevent changes and they set it up to allow the courts to act as a check on the power of the majority. Your view does not square with the conception and design of our government.
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
So far, proposition 8 supporters have been playing defense and that is their mistake. They should not have to defend themeselves over and over.
Listen up guys!! You need to throw the civil rights issue back in their faces. You need to have your own groups filing lawsuits against the ACLU for trying to disenfranchise African Americans at the ballot box.
Make them too uncomfortable to keep this garbage up. Stop playing defense!!!!
Take their own issues and defeat them with it!!
So far, proposition 8 supporters have been playing defense and that is their mistake. They should not have to defend themeselves over and over.
Listen up guys!! You need to throw the civil rights issue back in their faces. You need to have your own groups filing lawsuits against the ACLU for trying to disenfranchise African Americans at the ballot box.
Make them too uncomfortable to keep this garbage up. Stop playing defense!!!!
Take their own issues and defeat them with it!!
So far, proposition 8 supporters have been playing defense and that is their mistake. They should not have to defend themeselves over and over.
Listen up guys!! You need to throw the civil rights issue back in their faces. You need to have your own groups filing lawsuits against the ACLU for trying to disenfranchise African Americans at the ballot box.
Make them too uncomfortable to keep this garbage up. Stop playing defense!!!!
Take their own issues and defeat them with it!!
So far, proposition 8 supporters have been playing defense and that is their mistake. They should not have to defend themeselves over and over.
Listen up guys!! You need to throw the civil rights issue back in their faces. You need to have your own groups filing lawsuits against the ACLU for trying to disenfranchise African Americans at the ballot box.
Make them too uncomfortable to keep this garbage up. Stop playing defense!!!!
Take their own issues and defeat them with it!!
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
The hell it is. Since when does the court get to legislate from the bench?!!
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
The hell it is. Since when does the court get to legislate from the bench?!!
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
The hell it is. Since when does the court get to legislate from the bench?!!
“The seperation of powers was violated when the CA supreme court decided to write new law into CA invalidating the prior initiative and establishing gay marriage as law of the land.
They took power away from the voters, and they seized power from the legislature.”
That is in the court’s purview.
The hell it is. Since when does the court get to legislate from the bench?!!
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
Your argument here is not the court doesn’t have the power to do this–they clearly do and have had it for over 200 years–your argument is that you disagree with their ruling in this case. That’s a different question and one that the courts will have to untangle.
The argument that the petitioners are making here is that the constitutional process is set up to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to make substantive constitutional changes. The people cannot by majority vote simply change the constitution. Now if their argument is correct, then it does fall within a violation of separation of powers because clearly the legislature retains power here.
The court will have to sort out whether it does or not.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
Your argument here is not the court doesn’t have the power to do this–they clearly do and have had it for over 200 years–your argument is that you disagree with their ruling in this case. That’s a different question and one that the courts will have to untangle.
The argument that the petitioners are making here is that the constitutional process is set up to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to make substantive constitutional changes. The people cannot by majority vote simply change the constitution. Now if their argument is correct, then it does fall within a violation of separation of powers because clearly the legislature retains power here.
The court will have to sort out whether it does or not.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
Your argument here is not the court doesn’t have the power to do this–they clearly do and have had it for over 200 years–your argument is that you disagree with their ruling in this case. That’s a different question and one that the courts will have to untangle.
The argument that the petitioners are making here is that the constitutional process is set up to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to make substantive constitutional changes. The people cannot by majority vote simply change the constitution. Now if their argument is correct, then it does fall within a violation of separation of powers because clearly the legislature retains power here.
The court will have to sort out whether it does or not.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
Your argument here is not the court doesn’t have the power to do this–they clearly do and have had it for over 200 years–your argument is that you disagree with their ruling in this case. That’s a different question and one that the courts will have to untangle.
The argument that the petitioners are making here is that the constitutional process is set up to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to make substantive constitutional changes. The people cannot by majority vote simply change the constitution. Now if their argument is correct, then it does fall within a violation of separation of powers because clearly the legislature retains power here.
The court will have to sort out whether it does or not.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
But they do not have power to write a brand new law establishing Gay Marriage as legitimate, and then proceed to hand out liscenses like party favors.
that was a usurpation of power.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
But they do not have power to write a brand new law establishing Gay Marriage as legitimate, and then proceed to hand out liscenses like party favors.
that was a usurpation of power.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
But they do not have power to write a brand new law establishing Gay Marriage as legitimate, and then proceed to hand out liscenses like party favors.
that was a usurpation of power.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
But they do not have power to write a brand new law establishing Gay Marriage as legitimate, and then proceed to hand out liscenses like party favors.
that was a usurpation of power.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
Fister: “I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The (sic) produces a tyranny of the majority.”
Isn’t that what Prop 8 is all about? A majority, albeit a slim one (including Mr. Fister), voted to take away the civil rights of a small minority. Strange to know Fister now thinks doing so is a bad idea.
In his piece, David writes, “Unlike resolutions against the war*, Proposition 8 has a direct impact on the city, the county.”
It has a direct impact on some residents of the city, but it does not have any direct impact on the city as a corporation, its laws or its abiilty to regulate its affairs.
Despite the fact that I opposed Prop 8, I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
By contrast, I think the County Clerk and the County Board of Supervisors have enough standing to weigh in on this lawsuit. Yolo County issues marriage certificates, and the question in its essence is about who can and cannot be issued one by the county.
—-
* Justifying his vote on one of the anti-war city counil resolutions, Lamar said (paraphrasing), “This is city business because if the U.S. bombs Iran that will use up taxpayer resources we need for projects in Davis.” While true in a sense, that line of reasoning authorizes our city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters who finance their campaigns, to officially weigh in on every action or potential action of Congress, the president, the state legislature, the governor, etc.
Fister: “I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The (sic) produces a tyranny of the majority.”
Isn’t that what Prop 8 is all about? A majority, albeit a slim one (including Mr. Fister), voted to take away the civil rights of a small minority. Strange to know Fister now thinks doing so is a bad idea.
In his piece, David writes, “Unlike resolutions against the war*, Proposition 8 has a direct impact on the city, the county.”
It has a direct impact on some residents of the city, but it does not have any direct impact on the city as a corporation, its laws or its abiilty to regulate its affairs.
Despite the fact that I opposed Prop 8, I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
By contrast, I think the County Clerk and the County Board of Supervisors have enough standing to weigh in on this lawsuit. Yolo County issues marriage certificates, and the question in its essence is about who can and cannot be issued one by the county.
—-
* Justifying his vote on one of the anti-war city counil resolutions, Lamar said (paraphrasing), “This is city business because if the U.S. bombs Iran that will use up taxpayer resources we need for projects in Davis.” While true in a sense, that line of reasoning authorizes our city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters who finance their campaigns, to officially weigh in on every action or potential action of Congress, the president, the state legislature, the governor, etc.
Fister: “I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The (sic) produces a tyranny of the majority.”
Isn’t that what Prop 8 is all about? A majority, albeit a slim one (including Mr. Fister), voted to take away the civil rights of a small minority. Strange to know Fister now thinks doing so is a bad idea.
In his piece, David writes, “Unlike resolutions against the war*, Proposition 8 has a direct impact on the city, the county.”
It has a direct impact on some residents of the city, but it does not have any direct impact on the city as a corporation, its laws or its abiilty to regulate its affairs.
Despite the fact that I opposed Prop 8, I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
By contrast, I think the County Clerk and the County Board of Supervisors have enough standing to weigh in on this lawsuit. Yolo County issues marriage certificates, and the question in its essence is about who can and cannot be issued one by the county.
—-
* Justifying his vote on one of the anti-war city counil resolutions, Lamar said (paraphrasing), “This is city business because if the U.S. bombs Iran that will use up taxpayer resources we need for projects in Davis.” While true in a sense, that line of reasoning authorizes our city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters who finance their campaigns, to officially weigh in on every action or potential action of Congress, the president, the state legislature, the governor, etc.
Fister: “I do not believe that the majority can vote to take away rights of the people. The (sic) produces a tyranny of the majority.”
Isn’t that what Prop 8 is all about? A majority, albeit a slim one (including Mr. Fister), voted to take away the civil rights of a small minority. Strange to know Fister now thinks doing so is a bad idea.
In his piece, David writes, “Unlike resolutions against the war*, Proposition 8 has a direct impact on the city, the county.”
It has a direct impact on some residents of the city, but it does not have any direct impact on the city as a corporation, its laws or its abiilty to regulate its affairs.
Despite the fact that I opposed Prop 8, I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
By contrast, I think the County Clerk and the County Board of Supervisors have enough standing to weigh in on this lawsuit. Yolo County issues marriage certificates, and the question in its essence is about who can and cannot be issued one by the county.
—-
* Justifying his vote on one of the anti-war city counil resolutions, Lamar said (paraphrasing), “This is city business because if the U.S. bombs Iran that will use up taxpayer resources we need for projects in Davis.” While true in a sense, that line of reasoning authorizes our city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters who finance their campaigns, to officially weigh in on every action or potential action of Congress, the president, the state legislature, the governor, etc.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
But there exists an option that is available that allows them to have civil unions-granting them rights while not changing the institution. Segregation is a red herring and a crock.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
But there exists an option that is available that allows them to have civil unions-granting them rights while not changing the institution. Segregation is a red herring and a crock.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
But there exists an option that is available that allows them to have civil unions-granting them rights while not changing the institution. Segregation is a red herring and a crock.
They ruled that the current law was a violation of the right to marry, in essence. Just as a different court ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, they have ruled that laws preventing same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional.
But there exists an option that is available that allows them to have civil unions-granting them rights while not changing the institution. Segregation is a red herring and a crock.
Bush that’s fine, but again you’re getting into your own legal opinion and out of the realm of the power of the courts.
Bush that’s fine, but again you’re getting into your own legal opinion and out of the realm of the power of the courts.
Bush that’s fine, but again you’re getting into your own legal opinion and out of the realm of the power of the courts.
Bush that’s fine, but again you’re getting into your own legal opinion and out of the realm of the power of the courts.
“city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters”
Good editorial on this in the enterprise today.
“city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters”
Good editorial on this in the enterprise today.
“city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters”
Good editorial on this in the enterprise today.
“city council, elected to fix the roads and give multi-million dollar pensions to the firefighters”
Good editorial on this in the enterprise today.
I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
I agree. Even the times when I agree with them on the issue, I still don’t feel this is a part of their job. If Lamar wants to be a decision-maker on state/national issues, then maybe he should run for higher office.
I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
I agree. Even the times when I agree with them on the issue, I still don’t feel this is a part of their job. If Lamar wants to be a decision-maker on state/national issues, then maybe he should run for higher office.
I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
I agree. Even the times when I agree with them on the issue, I still don’t feel this is a part of their job. If Lamar wants to be a decision-maker on state/national issues, then maybe he should run for higher office.
I think the city council should not officially express itself on this issue or any other issue for which they were not elected. As individuals, the members of the council have every right to join an amicus brief or say what they think on their own time.
I agree. Even the times when I agree with them on the issue, I still don’t feel this is a part of their job. If Lamar wants to be a decision-maker on state/national issues, then maybe he should run for higher office.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
I want to address this. Yes, the courts have judicial review. But that power can be abused. And the power is abused here. Judicial review was not designed to give judges executive veto power over all legislation they disagree with just because they don’t get their way at a ballot box. Judicial review was not designed to further judicial activism. Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.
Tomorrow, that same court can overturn any and all legislation don’t like just because they don’t like it, citing bogus reasons of all sorts.
Next time, they may use judicial review to overturn legislation you want to see passed. You may vote on an initiative, only to see a rogue court undo your ballot.
I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. Judicial review was not designed to push politics and thwart the will of voters.
This judicial review came at the expense of nearly 60% of the electorate. That is judicial review at the expense of voters rights, many of them African American.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
I want to address this. Yes, the courts have judicial review. But that power can be abused. And the power is abused here. Judicial review was not designed to give judges executive veto power over all legislation they disagree with just because they don’t get their way at a ballot box. Judicial review was not designed to further judicial activism. Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.
Tomorrow, that same court can overturn any and all legislation don’t like just because they don’t like it, citing bogus reasons of all sorts.
Next time, they may use judicial review to overturn legislation you want to see passed. You may vote on an initiative, only to see a rogue court undo your ballot.
I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. Judicial review was not designed to push politics and thwart the will of voters.
This judicial review came at the expense of nearly 60% of the electorate. That is judicial review at the expense of voters rights, many of them African American.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
I want to address this. Yes, the courts have judicial review. But that power can be abused. And the power is abused here. Judicial review was not designed to give judges executive veto power over all legislation they disagree with just because they don’t get their way at a ballot box. Judicial review was not designed to further judicial activism. Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.
Tomorrow, that same court can overturn any and all legislation don’t like just because they don’t like it, citing bogus reasons of all sorts.
Next time, they may use judicial review to overturn legislation you want to see passed. You may vote on an initiative, only to see a rogue court undo your ballot.
I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. Judicial review was not designed to push politics and thwart the will of voters.
This judicial review came at the expense of nearly 60% of the electorate. That is judicial review at the expense of voters rights, many of them African American.
Your are conflating political arguments with legal ones here. The courts have had the power for judicial review since Marbury v. Madison and that precedent has not been challenged. That decision gives courts the right to review legislation and determine whether it is constitutional.
I want to address this. Yes, the courts have judicial review. But that power can be abused. And the power is abused here. Judicial review was not designed to give judges executive veto power over all legislation they disagree with just because they don’t get their way at a ballot box. Judicial review was not designed to further judicial activism. Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.
Tomorrow, that same court can overturn any and all legislation don’t like just because they don’t like it, citing bogus reasons of all sorts.
Next time, they may use judicial review to overturn legislation you want to see passed. You may vote on an initiative, only to see a rogue court undo your ballot.
I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. Judicial review was not designed to push politics and thwart the will of voters.
This judicial review came at the expense of nearly 60% of the electorate. That is judicial review at the expense of voters rights, many of them African American.
“I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. “
Happens all the time. The court often rules incorrectly in viewpoint. That does not change my general support for the principle of judicial review or my belief in the need for the court to protect the rights of individuals.
“I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. “
Happens all the time. The court often rules incorrectly in viewpoint. That does not change my general support for the principle of judicial review or my belief in the need for the court to protect the rights of individuals.
“I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. “
Happens all the time. The court often rules incorrectly in viewpoint. That does not change my general support for the principle of judicial review or my belief in the need for the court to protect the rights of individuals.
“I’ll say it again, next time it may be something you agree with get overturned. “
Happens all the time. The court often rules incorrectly in viewpoint. That does not change my general support for the principle of judicial review or my belief in the need for the court to protect the rights of individuals.
“Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.”
Who are the “political adversaries” of the California Supremes?
“Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.”
Who are the “political adversaries” of the California Supremes?
“Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.”
Who are the “political adversaries” of the California Supremes?
“Judicial review was not supposed to be a weapon Judges use against their political adversaries, which is what they have done here.”
Who are the “political adversaries” of the California Supremes?
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is simply social engineering by a very small minority and misguided do-gooders, helped by our corrupt state judical bench filled with activist judges. Prop 4 should never have been over-turned by the Califonia Supremely Liberal Court. It was this and only this that caused Prop 8 because the majority had no other recourse to combat these activist judges.
Forseeing this type of abuse of power by the courts, the framers of our constituion would liklely have added the admendment themselves.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is simply social engineering by a very small minority and misguided do-gooders, helped by our corrupt state judical bench filled with activist judges. Prop 4 should never have been over-turned by the Califonia Supremely Liberal Court. It was this and only this that caused Prop 8 because the majority had no other recourse to combat these activist judges.
Forseeing this type of abuse of power by the courts, the framers of our constituion would liklely have added the admendment themselves.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is simply social engineering by a very small minority and misguided do-gooders, helped by our corrupt state judical bench filled with activist judges. Prop 4 should never have been over-turned by the Califonia Supremely Liberal Court. It was this and only this that caused Prop 8 because the majority had no other recourse to combat these activist judges.
Forseeing this type of abuse of power by the courts, the framers of our constituion would liklely have added the admendment themselves.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is simply social engineering by a very small minority and misguided do-gooders, helped by our corrupt state judical bench filled with activist judges. Prop 4 should never have been over-turned by the Califonia Supremely Liberal Court. It was this and only this that caused Prop 8 because the majority had no other recourse to combat these activist judges.
Forseeing this type of abuse of power by the courts, the framers of our constituion would liklely have added the admendment themselves.
“Prop 4”
You meant Prop 22.
“Prop 4”
You meant Prop 22.
“Prop 4”
You meant Prop 22.
“Prop 4”
You meant Prop 22.
I believe in the three branches of government having equal power as a check for each other . It seems the initative process is a fourth branch. Since the Governor, the CA state legislature and the CA judicial system seem to be opposed to this revision of the constitution, I think that the initiative “branch” is overruled. The hatred and discrimination of a small group of people doesn’t belong here. The involvement of interest groups from outside of our state peverted the process. (The same city in Nebraska where the phone banks were organized to call California voters about supporting Measure 8 appeared in the news recently when local elementary school children were recorded chanting “Assassinate Obama!” This is not an environment that we want exported to California. )
I believe in the three branches of government having equal power as a check for each other . It seems the initative process is a fourth branch. Since the Governor, the CA state legislature and the CA judicial system seem to be opposed to this revision of the constitution, I think that the initiative “branch” is overruled. The hatred and discrimination of a small group of people doesn’t belong here. The involvement of interest groups from outside of our state peverted the process. (The same city in Nebraska where the phone banks were organized to call California voters about supporting Measure 8 appeared in the news recently when local elementary school children were recorded chanting “Assassinate Obama!” This is not an environment that we want exported to California. )
I believe in the three branches of government having equal power as a check for each other . It seems the initative process is a fourth branch. Since the Governor, the CA state legislature and the CA judicial system seem to be opposed to this revision of the constitution, I think that the initiative “branch” is overruled. The hatred and discrimination of a small group of people doesn’t belong here. The involvement of interest groups from outside of our state peverted the process. (The same city in Nebraska where the phone banks were organized to call California voters about supporting Measure 8 appeared in the news recently when local elementary school children were recorded chanting “Assassinate Obama!” This is not an environment that we want exported to California. )
I believe in the three branches of government having equal power as a check for each other . It seems the initative process is a fourth branch. Since the Governor, the CA state legislature and the CA judicial system seem to be opposed to this revision of the constitution, I think that the initiative “branch” is overruled. The hatred and discrimination of a small group of people doesn’t belong here. The involvement of interest groups from outside of our state peverted the process. (The same city in Nebraska where the phone banks were organized to call California voters about supporting Measure 8 appeared in the news recently when local elementary school children were recorded chanting “Assassinate Obama!” This is not an environment that we want exported to California. )
“Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue”
Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.
“Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue”
Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.
“Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue”
Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.
“Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue”
Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.
“Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.”
Marriage is a choice, unlike race and the color of one’s skin. Marriage is not a civil right. Even if you want to continue to make this false claim, the conflict is specifically and only about the term “marriage” and ALL that it entails in our current society. When the term “civil union” can be used – assuming all things are equal with marriage except the label – then we have a solution that certainly absolves the civil rights argument.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
“Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.”
Marriage is a choice, unlike race and the color of one’s skin. Marriage is not a civil right. Even if you want to continue to make this false claim, the conflict is specifically and only about the term “marriage” and ALL that it entails in our current society. When the term “civil union” can be used – assuming all things are equal with marriage except the label – then we have a solution that certainly absolves the civil rights argument.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
“Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.”
Marriage is a choice, unlike race and the color of one’s skin. Marriage is not a civil right. Even if you want to continue to make this false claim, the conflict is specifically and only about the term “marriage” and ALL that it entails in our current society. When the term “civil union” can be used – assuming all things are equal with marriage except the label – then we have a solution that certainly absolves the civil rights argument.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
“Gay marriage in a church is not a civil rights issue. But civil marriage is by definition a question of civil rights. This is foresquarely a civil rights issue.”
Marriage is a choice, unlike race and the color of one’s skin. Marriage is not a civil right. Even if you want to continue to make this false claim, the conflict is specifically and only about the term “marriage” and ALL that it entails in our current society. When the term “civil union” can be used – assuming all things are equal with marriage except the label – then we have a solution that certainly absolves the civil rights argument.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
Better yet put into a JAR (Judicial activism retired).
Better yet put into a JAR (Judicial activism retired).
Better yet put into a JAR (Judicial activism retired).
Better yet put into a JAR (Judicial activism retired).
“These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.”
The very fact that you are arguing against this belies that claim.
“These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.”
The very fact that you are arguing against this belies that claim.
“These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.”
The very fact that you are arguing against this belies that claim.
“These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.”
The very fact that you are arguing against this belies that claim.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
You have gotten to the heart of this issue for me.. I am a very happily married heterosexual who strongly supported Proposition 8. One of the key reasons is that many of the supporters of Prop 8 (and virtually all of the financial supporters) were very simply imposing their personal religious beliefs on society as a whole. The Constitution very specifically prohibits this very kind of behavior. You are free to practice your beliefs in private, but you can not imposer those beliefs on others. Proposition 8 and its predecessor Proposition (as written) were both deFacto and deJure unConstitutional on many levels. The Supreme Court did its job and formally and legally stated that fact.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
You have gotten to the heart of this issue for me.. I am a very happily married heterosexual who strongly supported Proposition 8. One of the key reasons is that many of the supporters of Prop 8 (and virtually all of the financial supporters) were very simply imposing their personal religious beliefs on society as a whole. The Constitution very specifically prohibits this very kind of behavior. You are free to practice your beliefs in private, but you can not imposer those beliefs on others. Proposition 8 and its predecessor Proposition (as written) were both deFacto and deJure unConstitutional on many levels. The Supreme Court did its job and formally and legally stated that fact.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
You have gotten to the heart of this issue for me.. I am a very happily married heterosexual who strongly supported Proposition 8. One of the key reasons is that many of the supporters of Prop 8 (and virtually all of the financial supporters) were very simply imposing their personal religious beliefs on society as a whole. The Constitution very specifically prohibits this very kind of behavior. You are free to practice your beliefs in private, but you can not imposer those beliefs on others. Proposition 8 and its predecessor Proposition (as written) were both deFacto and deJure unConstitutional on many levels. The Supreme Court did its job and formally and legally stated that fact.
There is tremendous intolerance of those whose belief system cannot accept the sameness of gay marriage compared to marriage between and husband and wife. What do these people tell their children while also supporting their belief system? There are many more people with this problem than there are people that would be “impacted” with civil unions. And, what is the extent of the impact? Being different? I thought gays celebrated their difference; so why not embrace and celebrate “civil union” as such?
You have gotten to the heart of this issue for me.. I am a very happily married heterosexual who strongly supported Proposition 8. One of the key reasons is that many of the supporters of Prop 8 (and virtually all of the financial supporters) were very simply imposing their personal religious beliefs on society as a whole. The Constitution very specifically prohibits this very kind of behavior. You are free to practice your beliefs in private, but you can not imposer those beliefs on others. Proposition 8 and its predecessor Proposition (as written) were both deFacto and deJure unConstitutional on many levels. The Supreme Court did its job and formally and legally stated that fact.
Bush’s Fist said…
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
Your statement only addresses part of the equation. While it may be true that “These people don’t have a right to a marriage label …” it is equally true that you don’t have a right to the marriage label either.
Bush’s Fist said…
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
Your statement only addresses part of the equation. While it may be true that “These people don’t have a right to a marriage label …” it is equally true that you don’t have a right to the marriage label either.
Bush’s Fist said…
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
Your statement only addresses part of the equation. While it may be true that “These people don’t have a right to a marriage label …” it is equally true that you don’t have a right to the marriage label either.
Bush’s Fist said…
I agree with the civil Unions person. These people don’t have a right to a marriage label, and the civil rights issue goes out the window if they are granted the same protections married couples are.
If they can have equal rights without the label, arguably the supreme court subjectively used the civil rights issue incorrectly, and abused their power of Judicial review. Judicial review is not supposed to further personal political causes. The power was abused, and as such they ought to be removed from the bench and put in a JAR (Judicial activists retired).
Your statement only addresses part of the equation. While it may be true that “These people don’t have a right to a marriage label …” it is equally true that you don’t have a right to the marriage label either.
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
The UN-sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not even explicitly support gay marriage and likely adopted this nebulous wording to prevent it:
Article 16 reads…
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Note the absence of “sexual orientation” as one of the protected limitations. Note the last sentence carefully supporting the importance of “family”. Again, nebulous, but using the words “found a family” and “natural” is indicative of the universal protection for marriage that produces and rears offspring. Something gays cannot do naturally unless they support infidelity.
It is really too bad that California gays and their activists have tried to make this some more important social cause. At best count about 5.5% of the US population is gay. It is likely that less than 2% will ever want to be married. Out of that, it is likely that a small percent really truly have a problem with a civil union that prevents material discrimination based on sexual orientation (I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
The UN-sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not even explicitly support gay marriage and likely adopted this nebulous wording to prevent it:
Article 16 reads…
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Note the absence of “sexual orientation” as one of the protected limitations. Note the last sentence carefully supporting the importance of “family”. Again, nebulous, but using the words “found a family” and “natural” is indicative of the universal protection for marriage that produces and rears offspring. Something gays cannot do naturally unless they support infidelity.
It is really too bad that California gays and their activists have tried to make this some more important social cause. At best count about 5.5% of the US population is gay. It is likely that less than 2% will ever want to be married. Out of that, it is likely that a small percent really truly have a problem with a civil union that prevents material discrimination based on sexual orientation (I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
The UN-sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not even explicitly support gay marriage and likely adopted this nebulous wording to prevent it:
Article 16 reads…
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Note the absence of “sexual orientation” as one of the protected limitations. Note the last sentence carefully supporting the importance of “family”. Again, nebulous, but using the words “found a family” and “natural” is indicative of the universal protection for marriage that produces and rears offspring. Something gays cannot do naturally unless they support infidelity.
It is really too bad that California gays and their activists have tried to make this some more important social cause. At best count about 5.5% of the US population is gay. It is likely that less than 2% will ever want to be married. Out of that, it is likely that a small percent really truly have a problem with a civil union that prevents material discrimination based on sexual orientation (I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
The UN-sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not even explicitly support gay marriage and likely adopted this nebulous wording to prevent it:
Article 16 reads…
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Note the absence of “sexual orientation” as one of the protected limitations. Note the last sentence carefully supporting the importance of “family”. Again, nebulous, but using the words “found a family” and “natural” is indicative of the universal protection for marriage that produces and rears offspring. Something gays cannot do naturally unless they support infidelity.
It is really too bad that California gays and their activists have tried to make this some more important social cause. At best count about 5.5% of the US population is gay. It is likely that less than 2% will ever want to be married. Out of that, it is likely that a small percent really truly have a problem with a civil union that prevents material discrimination based on sexual orientation (I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
Accept Civil Onions said…
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
…
I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
ACO, can you help me understand one thing? What is there about gay marriage that makes you uncomfortable? … and what do you think is the source of that discomfort?
Accept Civil Onions said…
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
…
I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
ACO, can you help me understand one thing? What is there about gay marriage that makes you uncomfortable? … and what do you think is the source of that discomfort?
Accept Civil Onions said…
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
…
I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
ACO, can you help me understand one thing? What is there about gay marriage that makes you uncomfortable? … and what do you think is the source of that discomfort?
Accept Civil Onions said…
Marriage may be a social right, but certainly not a civil right. Even as a social right, there are criteria to be met even for man-woman marriage. For example, there is an age requirement. Also, you cannot marry more than one person no matter what age or gender.
…
I say “material” because there is always going to be some cultural clash between religion and homosexuality). So, we are talking about a very small group of people who, for no rational reason, are trying to stir up a pot of trouble and resentment for the majority that is uncomfortable with or does not want to accept gay marriage.
ACO, can you help me understand one thing? What is there about gay marriage that makes you uncomfortable? … and what do you think is the source of that discomfort?
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy. I support civil unions with legal equality. I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm only to make a very few people feel more accepted… at the expense of many more people having their belief system corrupted. I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy. I support civil unions with legal equality. I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm only to make a very few people feel more accepted… at the expense of many more people having their belief system corrupted. I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy. I support civil unions with legal equality. I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm only to make a very few people feel more accepted… at the expense of many more people having their belief system corrupted. I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy. I support civil unions with legal equality. I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm only to make a very few people feel more accepted… at the expense of many more people having their belief system corrupted. I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
Accept Civil Onions said…
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy.
…
I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
Help me understand, you want gay parades and rainbow stickers to go away before equality is granted? If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?
The Constitution doesn’t ask for a census count when protecting America’s citizens. All Men are created equal. So why is “a very few people” relevant.
Finally, you say, I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm … How is that norm being redefined? You can still get married just the same way you always could. My wife and I chose to get married in a church. We chose to go beyond simply getting a marriage license at the County Courthouse. Would those choices have been abridged in any way? Help me understand this redefinition better?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy.
…
I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
Help me understand, you want gay parades and rainbow stickers to go away before equality is granted? If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?
The Constitution doesn’t ask for a census count when protecting America’s citizens. All Men are created equal. So why is “a very few people” relevant.
Finally, you say, I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm … How is that norm being redefined? You can still get married just the same way you always could. My wife and I chose to get married in a church. We chose to go beyond simply getting a marriage license at the County Courthouse. Would those choices have been abridged in any way? Help me understand this redefinition better?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy.
…
I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
Help me understand, you want gay parades and rainbow stickers to go away before equality is granted? If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?
The Constitution doesn’t ask for a census count when protecting America’s citizens. All Men are created equal. So why is “a very few people” relevant.
Finally, you say, I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm … How is that norm being redefined? You can still get married just the same way you always could. My wife and I chose to get married in a church. We chose to go beyond simply getting a marriage license at the County Courthouse. Would those choices have been abridged in any way? Help me understand this redefinition better?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I do not have a problem with gays and gay lifestyle and support this as an individual right and right to privacy.
…
I have a problem with gays, as a group, constantly seeking special exclusivity and protection in the social and political arena, while also trying to manipulate laws to force-inject acceptance as “normal” all things gay.
Social acceptance for all things gay comes after gays give up the quest for exclusivity. If you are looking for more concrete examples… when there is no need for gay parades and rainbow stickers then maybe society can absorb gays as a new type of normal and therefore support gay marriage. Until then, we should all just accept civil unions… different, but equal.
Help me understand, you want gay parades and rainbow stickers to go away before equality is granted? If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?
The Constitution doesn’t ask for a census count when protecting America’s citizens. All Men are created equal. So why is “a very few people” relevant.
Finally, you say, I have a problem with the redefinition of a long-standing and important social and cultural norm … How is that norm being redefined? You can still get married just the same way you always could. My wife and I chose to get married in a church. We chose to go beyond simply getting a marriage license at the County Courthouse. Would those choices have been abridged in any way? Help me understand this redefinition better?
“If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?”
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness. So why not accept civil unions as the unique alternative to marriage?
“How is that norm being redefined?”
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judea-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together. When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
I find it a bit of irony (maybe hypocrisy) that those on the political Left that would force this change on American culture also agitate to protect other cultures from the corrupting influence of modernism. You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family. There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
“If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?”
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness. So why not accept civil unions as the unique alternative to marriage?
“How is that norm being redefined?”
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judea-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together. When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
I find it a bit of irony (maybe hypocrisy) that those on the political Left that would force this change on American culture also agitate to protect other cultures from the corrupting influence of modernism. You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family. There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
“If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?”
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness. So why not accept civil unions as the unique alternative to marriage?
“How is that norm being redefined?”
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judea-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together. When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
I find it a bit of irony (maybe hypocrisy) that those on the political Left that would force this change on American culture also agitate to protect other cultures from the corrupting influence of modernism. You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family. There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
“If you made the same proposition to Martin Luther King, how receptive would he have been?”
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness. So why not accept civil unions as the unique alternative to marriage?
“How is that norm being redefined?”
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judea-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together. When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
I find it a bit of irony (maybe hypocrisy) that those on the political Left that would force this change on American culture also agitate to protect other cultures from the corrupting influence of modernism. You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family. There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
Accept Civil Onions said…
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
You are confusing principles with tactics. I agree with you that MLK probably wouldn’t have supported gay marriage. The parallel I was drawing was that MLK clearly never lost sight of the finish line. He wouldn’t have, and didn’t, back off if given an alternative that left him further along, but still short of the finish line. If you believe in your cause, why stop short?
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness.
And the march on Washington and the march to Selma similarly indicated a desire to recognize African-American equality before the law. Why do you believe that Gay Americans should accept less than African-Americans did?
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judeo-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together.
Here you have gotten to the crux of the matter for me. What in essence you are saying is that our govenment should codify honoring the religious beliefs of one group of Americans over the spiritual beliefs of another group of Americans. That is exactly the kind of oppression the Puritans, Pilgrims and Quakers experienced in England. They are our Forefathers because of that oppression, and the reason the Constitution is written as it is, is to be sure that oppression isn’t repeated.
When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
Loving vs. Virginia was decided in the face of exactly the same argument. The only difference was the specifics of the parties who were being denied marriage rights.
You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
You are oversimplifying the reduced birthrates in Europe. Belief in Zero Population Growth is a much greater factor in those reductions than the small percentage of gay marriages. If you are going to make your own personal contribution to controlling the World’s population, why take the additional step of getting married?
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family.
I completely agree. However, what is it about another couple’s decision to marry that changes your own personal definition of yourself? Getting a marriage license is a pretty antiseptic event. Take a number, stand in line, fill out a form, write a check, receive a document. Compare that to your marriage ceremony (if you chose to have one). That is an intensely personal celebration of commitment, validated and supported by the people in attendance. Why do you relegate gays to the antiseptic while granting non-gays a celebration?
There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
I repeat my point above, but modified to include your new words.
Why do you relegate gays to antiseptic “legal protection” while granting non-gays a celebration of community with their legal protection?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
You are confusing principles with tactics. I agree with you that MLK probably wouldn’t have supported gay marriage. The parallel I was drawing was that MLK clearly never lost sight of the finish line. He wouldn’t have, and didn’t, back off if given an alternative that left him further along, but still short of the finish line. If you believe in your cause, why stop short?
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness.
And the march on Washington and the march to Selma similarly indicated a desire to recognize African-American equality before the law. Why do you believe that Gay Americans should accept less than African-Americans did?
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judeo-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together.
Here you have gotten to the crux of the matter for me. What in essence you are saying is that our govenment should codify honoring the religious beliefs of one group of Americans over the spiritual beliefs of another group of Americans. That is exactly the kind of oppression the Puritans, Pilgrims and Quakers experienced in England. They are our Forefathers because of that oppression, and the reason the Constitution is written as it is, is to be sure that oppression isn’t repeated.
When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
Loving vs. Virginia was decided in the face of exactly the same argument. The only difference was the specifics of the parties who were being denied marriage rights.
You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
You are oversimplifying the reduced birthrates in Europe. Belief in Zero Population Growth is a much greater factor in those reductions than the small percentage of gay marriages. If you are going to make your own personal contribution to controlling the World’s population, why take the additional step of getting married?
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family.
I completely agree. However, what is it about another couple’s decision to marry that changes your own personal definition of yourself? Getting a marriage license is a pretty antiseptic event. Take a number, stand in line, fill out a form, write a check, receive a document. Compare that to your marriage ceremony (if you chose to have one). That is an intensely personal celebration of commitment, validated and supported by the people in attendance. Why do you relegate gays to the antiseptic while granting non-gays a celebration?
There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
I repeat my point above, but modified to include your new words.
Why do you relegate gays to antiseptic “legal protection” while granting non-gays a celebration of community with their legal protection?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
You are confusing principles with tactics. I agree with you that MLK probably wouldn’t have supported gay marriage. The parallel I was drawing was that MLK clearly never lost sight of the finish line. He wouldn’t have, and didn’t, back off if given an alternative that left him further along, but still short of the finish line. If you believe in your cause, why stop short?
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness.
And the march on Washington and the march to Selma similarly indicated a desire to recognize African-American equality before the law. Why do you believe that Gay Americans should accept less than African-Americans did?
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judeo-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together.
Here you have gotten to the crux of the matter for me. What in essence you are saying is that our govenment should codify honoring the religious beliefs of one group of Americans over the spiritual beliefs of another group of Americans. That is exactly the kind of oppression the Puritans, Pilgrims and Quakers experienced in England. They are our Forefathers because of that oppression, and the reason the Constitution is written as it is, is to be sure that oppression isn’t repeated.
When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
Loving vs. Virginia was decided in the face of exactly the same argument. The only difference was the specifics of the parties who were being denied marriage rights.
You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
You are oversimplifying the reduced birthrates in Europe. Belief in Zero Population Growth is a much greater factor in those reductions than the small percentage of gay marriages. If you are going to make your own personal contribution to controlling the World’s population, why take the additional step of getting married?
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family.
I completely agree. However, what is it about another couple’s decision to marry that changes your own personal definition of yourself? Getting a marriage license is a pretty antiseptic event. Take a number, stand in line, fill out a form, write a check, receive a document. Compare that to your marriage ceremony (if you chose to have one). That is an intensely personal celebration of commitment, validated and supported by the people in attendance. Why do you relegate gays to the antiseptic while granting non-gays a celebration?
There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
I repeat my point above, but modified to include your new words.
Why do you relegate gays to antiseptic “legal protection” while granting non-gays a celebration of community with their legal protection?
Accept Civil Onions said…
I think this is an over-simplification of a comparison that misses the mark. MLK was leading the civil rights protest against racial discrimination. As a minister, I don’t think he or his followers would have been receptive to gay marriage, and certainly he would NOT have accepted it as a comparable civil rights movement.
You are confusing principles with tactics. I agree with you that MLK probably wouldn’t have supported gay marriage. The parallel I was drawing was that MLK clearly never lost sight of the finish line. He wouldn’t have, and didn’t, back off if given an alternative that left him further along, but still short of the finish line. If you believe in your cause, why stop short?
The point about the gay pride parade and rainbow stickers was simply that these things indicate a desire to perpetuate gay individuality and uniqueness.
And the march on Washington and the march to Selma similarly indicated a desire to recognize African-American equality before the law. Why do you believe that Gay Americans should accept less than African-Americans did?
Like it or not, we are still primarily a Judeo-Christian society. We rightfully argue for separation of religion from governance, but should not argue for religion to be removed from our social and cultural norms. We should value our fundamental traditions that bind us together.
Here you have gotten to the crux of the matter for me. What in essence you are saying is that our govenment should codify honoring the religious beliefs of one group of Americans over the spiritual beliefs of another group of Americans. That is exactly the kind of oppression the Puritans, Pilgrims and Quakers experienced in England. They are our Forefathers because of that oppression, and the reason the Constitution is written as it is, is to be sure that oppression isn’t repeated.
When we push to change too much of what we traditionally believe in, we lose our sense of direction and community… it feels like every man/woman for himself/herself.
Loving vs. Virginia was decided in the face of exactly the same argument. The only difference was the specifics of the parties who were being denied marriage rights.
You have to look no farther than Europe to understand how progressive social engineering that allows gays to marry has adversely impacted culture. Specifically it has led to decline in overall marriage and birthrate.
You are oversimplifying the reduced birthrates in Europe. Belief in Zero Population Growth is a much greater factor in those reductions than the small percentage of gay marriages. If you are going to make your own personal contribution to controlling the World’s population, why take the additional step of getting married?
Marriage is a hugely important social and cultural entity that predates our constitution and laws. It defines many of us (even you use the term “My Wife” in you blog) and cements historical precedence for procreation and family.
I completely agree. However, what is it about another couple’s decision to marry that changes your own personal definition of yourself? Getting a marriage license is a pretty antiseptic event. Take a number, stand in line, fill out a form, write a check, receive a document. Compare that to your marriage ceremony (if you chose to have one). That is an intensely personal celebration of commitment, validated and supported by the people in attendance. Why do you relegate gays to the antiseptic while granting non-gays a celebration?
There is significant nuance at play here with respect to accepting gay marriage into our culture and society. It is not as simple an argument as many try to make it. There is no gay-bashing or homophobia here… only a desire to protect the traditional, historical, religious and cultural definition of marriage while supporting civil unions that provide equal legal protection for gays, while maintaining a circumstance of difference that should be acceptable to all.
I repeat my point above, but modified to include your new words.
Why do you relegate gays to antiseptic “legal protection” while granting non-gays a celebration of community with their legal protection?