[Epaphras]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009030...08599188350800

Both sides weighed in yesterday and now the court has 90 days to render a decision.

Do you think the court will overturn the amendment? If so, on what grounds?

Should the court support the amendment? If so, why?

My opinion is that while I see no civil reason why gays should not be allowed to join in civil unions (leave marriage to the church -- to the state it should only be a civil union), the people of California did vote on how they want to form their government. Yes, the standard for constitutional amendments in California is extremely low: that is the battle to fight, not this referendum. But there is no legal reason why the amendment should be overturned by the Court.

I would be very surprised if the Court overturns this.

Thoughts?

[ibanez_dude]

The court was grilling the opposition to prop 8 yesterday, and it seems to me unlikely that it will be overturned. Honestly, I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. No one is telling how they can or can't live their lives. The only thing that happened here is that people stood up and said "We don't want this to legally recognized as marriage." That's all. People are free live their lives however they want, free to live with their "partner" if they so choose. The court got it right yesterday, all that is being argued here is the nomenclature of "marriage."

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by ibanez_dude

The court was grilling the opposition to prop 8 yesterday, and it seems to me unlikely that it will be overturned. Honestly, I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. No one is telling how they can or can't live their lives. The only thing that happened here is that people stood up and said "We don't want this to legally recognized as marriage." That's all. People are free live their lives however they want, free to live with their "partner" if they so choose. The court got it right yesterday, all that is being argued here is the nomenclature of "marriage."

But they are telling them how they can and cannot live. They're telling them their partners can't visit them in the hospital, that they can't share medical benefits of their partner, jointly adopt a child, receive tax benefits, social security, medicare, medical and bereavement leave, the ability to make medical decisions, the ability to make funeral arrangements, spousal privilege in court cases, domestic violence protection, and the list goes on.

[tlj009]

But they are telling them how they can and cannot live. They're telling them their partners can't visit them in the hospital, that they can't share medical benefits of their partner, jointly adopt a child, receive tax benefits, social security, medicare, medical and bereavement leave, the ability to make medical decisions, the ability to make funeral arrangements, spousal privilege in court cases, domestic violence protection, and the list goes on.

The majority of the people passed the law and by doing so basically said that they disapprove with the lifestyle. They should not get government money the same as a married couple simply because the majority said that they disapprove. To me it is the same as pacifists paying taxes which support our military. They are the minority. And as the minority, they don't get to decide where the tax money is spent. It may suck but that is the way that we are set up. That is what happens when people feel strong enough about something to put it to a vote instead of just leaving it to the politicians.

And just to clarify, in what way do they not receive "domestic violence protection"? Do the police not respond?

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The majority of the people passed the law and by doing so basically said that they disapprove with the lifestyle. They should not get government money the same as a married couple simply because the majority said that they disapprove. To me it is the same as pacifists paying taxes which support our military. They are the minority. And as the minority, they don't get to decide where the tax money is spent. It may suck but that is the way that we are set up. That is what happens when people feel strong enough about something to put it to a vote instead of just leaving it to the politicians.

The simple fact is that there's a lot of things in our government that is decided by more than just a simple majority. That's the real issue the article talked about. Should the state be able to change their constitution by a simple majority vote? 52% isn't even much of a majority.

Regardless, ibanez_dude said no one was telling them how to live. I was merely describing the many ways in which they are. You seem to be disagreeing with him and saying "the majority ... disapprove with the lifestyle."

And just to clarify, in what way do they not receive "domestic violence protection"? Do the police not respond?

I believe it's a matter of whether they can receive a civil order of protection from a Family Court.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Should the state be able to change their constitution by a simple majority vote? 52% isn't even much of a majority.

Most states allow for a simple majority vote to ratify an amendment. The difference, however, is how it gets to the point where the public votes on it. CA has initiative referenda which means if you can get enough signatures you can get an amendment on the ballot. In the other half of states (mine own included) it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses before it is turned over to the people for ratification.

Even if they did accomplished that, though, they'd still be screwed because even if they could convince 2/3 of the legislature to get an amendment to the people, assuming the same number of people are opposed to gay marriage it'll never get ratified. It's basically a useless hurdle because the end result is the same.

The best chance they have is getting another amendment on the ballot via initiative referendum for next time, changing the language of Prop 8 to include same-sex marriage. And then campaigning like crazy to get a majority. The worst that it gets voted down and the current amendment stay in place, and they can keep trying and trying.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Thoughts?

What if there was a referendum saying that black people or white people were not allowed to form civil unions? Does the majority get to take away the individual rights of others? I would hope to live in a society where this is not the case. While I don't agree with gay marriage among Christians and within the Church, I recognize that I live in a secular society where equal rights should be guaranteed. From an altruistic standpoint I safeguard other peoples rights because it is the right thing to do. From a selfish standpoint I safeguard other peoples rights because I expect that some day there may come a time when my rights are encroached upon.

It seems as if the majority has spoken in the case of Prop 8, but does the majority get to decide this? I would argue no. We associate this idea of the majority restricting the rights of others with situations like those in African countries, the US with Jim Crow laws and Nazi Germany.

The question I guess is, do same-sex couples have the right to form civil unions? I believe they do. I can't think of any reason why heterosexual couples can have hospital visitation rights, etc. and not same sex couples.

[tlj009]

The simple fact is that there's a lot of things in our government that is decided by more than just a simple majority. That's the real issue the article talked about. Should the state be able to change their constitution by a simple majority vote? 52% isn't even much of a majority.

That is the way that it is as of now. Whether it is right or wrong is beyond me. And I did acknowledge that most things are decided by things other than a simple majority. I would argue that most things are decided by a minority as we let our politicians make the decisions. And I don't know of anyone that has agreed with the politician that they voted for on every decision.

Regardless, ibanez_dude said no one was telling them how to live. I was merely describing the many ways in which they are. You seem to be disagreeing with him and saying "the majority ... disapprove with the lifestyle."

I think that what he was referring to was how they live their private lives. I really don't think that anyone could come up with the conclusion that it is not a statement of disapproval from the majority or that the majority is not limiting government benefits and support to homosexual couples. The whole purpose was to prevent homosexuals from achieving the status of married.

I believe it's a matter of whether they can receive a civil order of protection from a Family Court.

I think that anyone can apply for a protection order against anyone. But is that the reason that you specify "Family Court"? If it is, then homosexuals has the same right and benefits here, they just have a different avenue.

Regardless, I looked it up. California allows domestic partnerships and has since 2000. Apparently, domestic partnerships are basically the same as a marriage but has a few minor differences. The differences listed don't seem to be that significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._from_Marriage

[JerryLove]

The issue before the court is whether Prop8 represents an amendment to the constitution or a revision of the constitution.

If it was an amendment, then it stays. If it was a revision, then it has not been passed (as it requires a 2/3 vote of state-congress).

Given the past decision by the court (that the constitution of California prevented discriminating against homosexual marriages), it seems the only consistent position would be that it represents a revision (specifically: it revises whatever part they were referring to when they said that the constitution protected homosexual marriage) and therefore Prop 8 is not proper and does not apply.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That is the way that it is as of now. Whether it is right or wrong is beyond me. And I did acknowledge that most things are decided by things other than a simple majority. I would argue that most things are decided by a minority as we let our politicians make the decisions. And I don't know of anyone that has agreed with the politician that they voted for on every decision.

But we give up the power to vote on every issue ourselves by choice. If we could all vote on whether we wanted a true, pure democracy, and just took the time to think about all the inane, pointless issues like whether monkeys can be transported across state lines, I imagine we'd vote to let the politicians take care of those things.

I think things like constitutional amendments should be decided on more than 50% + 1. I just don't believe 50% + 1 always know what's best for everyone, and when it's something as big as a constitutional amendment, there needs to be much more of a majority agreement.

I think that what he was referring to was how they live their private lives. I really don't think that anyone could come up with the conclusion that it is not a statement of disapproval from the majority or that the majority is not limiting government benefits and support to homosexual couples. The whole purpose was to prevent homosexuals from achieving the status of married.

Either you expect homosexuals to keep their relationships private, or you are telling them how to live.

OneHope said it best. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not, we're not a Christian nation, and there is no valid reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, including marriage, that doesn't appeal to some religious base. Keep them out of your church if you want, but you can't deny them the same equal rights as everyone else in the country. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I think that anyone can apply for a protection order against anyone. But is that the reason that you specify "Family Court"? If it is, then homosexuals has the same right and benefits here, they just have a different avenue.

Some don't wish to go down the avenue of criminal charges. Many prefer to keep it in Family Court because of this. I also think that Family Court will require the perpetrator to attend a program for batterers. It's a much better option in many cases than bringing criminal charges on a spouse.

Regardless, I looked it up. California allows domestic partnerships and has since 2000. Apparently, domestic partnerships are basically the same as a marriage but has a few minor differences. The differences listed don't seem to be that significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._from_Marriage

If there's no real difference, then why does it matter to people?

That wiki article made a good point that there is a big social difference between domestic partnership and marriage, enough to make homosexuals want the label "marriage" and how others are willing to grant them domestic partnership but not the label of "marriage". There is a distinct social difference, despite their relatively small difference legally.

I've read it here before that some would want marriage to be purely a religious institution and domestic partnerships be the de facto, keeping the two separate. I think if we could just snap our fingers and it be so both legally and socially, then that wouldn't be a bad solution at all. However, the point I'm trying to make is that marriage, whether it would be better as a purely religious institution or not, it isn't purely religious. And it would take a LOT for it to be seen completely differently by our society. It may be unfortunate to the religious community, but marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal contract are inexorably intertwined.

[tlj009]

But we give up the power to vote on every issue ourselves by choice. If we could all vote on whether we wanted a true, pure democracy, and just took the time to think about all the inane, pointless issues like whether monkeys can be transported across state lines, I imagine we'd vote to let the politicians take care of those things.

I think things like constitutional amendments should be decided on more than 50% + 1. I just don't believe 50% + 1 always know what's best for everyone, and when it's something as big as a constitutional amendment, there needs to be much more of a majority agreement.

Your talking about what "should" be. I really don't know what "should" be in regards to passing these amendments. Jerry did state what is very accurately though.

Either you expect homosexuals to keep their relationships private, or you are telling them how to live.

I choose the first. I think that the feeling is that homosexuals should keep their relationships private. But I doubt that you meant to make an either/or statement.

OneHope said it best. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not, we're not a Christian nation, and there is no valid reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, including marriage, that doesn't appeal to some religious base. Keep them out of your church if you want, but you can't deny them the same equal rights as everyone else in the country. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

You can make many reasons but there has been a lot of work put into making those reasons not seem valid. Still the majority would appeal to religion. And people can and have prevented others from having equal rights, discrimination or not. But we could call the taking away of rights for criminals as discrimination. In reality it isn't. It is just that people make certain choices and other people have decided that those choices are wrong. The majority has decided that homosexuality is wrong and that a homosexual relationship doesn't deserve the status of marriage. It can and does happen whether you like it or not.

Some don't wish to go down the avenue of criminal charges. Many prefer to keep it in Family Court because of this. I also think that Family Court will require the perpetrator to attend a program for batterers. It's a much better option in many cases than bringing criminal charges on a spouse.

Apparently, there are four types of protection orders and only one appears to require criminal charges being filed. I still don't see that Family Court is necessary to get any of them.

http://www.protectionorder.org/protection_orders.htm

If there's no real difference, then why does it matter to people?

Pride? I mean I can understand the religious claiming religious aspects of marriage but as for the other side, all I see is that their pride is hurt.

That wiki article made a good point that there is a big social difference between domestic partnership and marriage, enough to make homosexuals want the label "marriage" and how others are willing to grant them domestic partnership but not the label of "marriage". There is a distinct social difference, despite their relatively small difference legally.

Of course there is a social difference. The difference is that society sees marriage as a sacred institution with many religious aspects. The reason homosexuals get upset is because with denying them marriage, society is telling them that their lifestyles is wrong. No one likes hearing that and it is understandable that they would be upset. But it still comes down to people's pride being hurt.

And if we are talking about understanding, then how do you stay angry at people for taking a stand against something that they believe is wrong on a fundamental level. Whatever either side believes, I see no reason to get angry about it. Frustrated maybe but not angry.

I've read it here before that some would want marriage to be purely a religious institution and domestic partnerships be the de facto, keeping the two separate. I think if we could just snap our fingers and it be so both legally and socially, then that wouldn't be a bad solution at all. However, the point I'm trying to make is that marriage, whether it would be better as a purely religious institution or not, it isn't purely religious. And it would take a LOT for it to be seen completely differently by our society. It may be unfortunate to the religious community, but marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal contract are inexorably intertwined.

Maybe. But the reason that marriage isn't purely religious is because the government made it a legal contract. The reason that the government did that is because the government did not originally have separation of church and state as we see it today. Instead, it was more like keeping one denomination from ruling another denomination. Also, the social differences are mainly because of the religious aspects of marriage. The government renaming "marriage" a "domestic partnership" is really the only logical thing to do with the current separation of Church and State attitudes.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Your talking about what "should" be. I really don't know what "should" be in regards to passing these amendments. Jerry did state what is very accurately though.

Obviously I'm talking about how it should be. That was the whole point of what I was saying. If California wanted to, they could pass an amendment that would take away any number of state given individual rights. From the article...

When questioned, Starr conceded that his view of the state constitution would permit a simple majority of the voters to repeal any right enshrined in the state constitution, including the right to free speech or a prohibition against racial discrimination. "While it is unthinkable," he said, "... the people do have the raw power" to make whatever changes they desire, so long as they do not alter the basic structure of government."

Obviously the majority would not vote to take away rights the majority enjoys. But in this case, we have the majority taking away the rights of the minority. How is that in any way just or right?

I choose the first. I think that the feeling is that homosexuals should keep their relationships private. But I doubt that you meant to make an either/or statement.

I don't even know what to say to this. It's absurd and discriminatory.

You can make many reasons but there has been a lot of work put into making those reasons not seem valid. Still the majority would appeal to religion. And people can and have prevented others from having equal rights, discrimination or not. But we could call the taking away of rights for criminals as discrimination. In reality it isn't. It is just that people make certain choices and other people have decided that those choices are wrong. The majority has decided that homosexuality is wrong and that a homosexual relationship doesn't deserve the status of marriage. It can and does happen whether you like it or not.

It wasn't too long ago the majority thought slavery was fine. Should abolitionists have said, "Well, the majority think it's fine. It happens whether we like it or not. No reason we should strive for blacks to be treated like human beings."

Criminals still have rights until proven guilty. Certain rights are taken away because they violated the rights of other American citizens. If I murder you, I take away your right to live. If I steal from you, I take away your right to own the item I stole. If I have sex with another man, how does that infringe on any of your rights as an individual, as an American citizen, or as a human being? How does it hurt you at all? How is it even any of your business at all?

Apparently, there are four types of protection orders and only one appears to require criminal charges being filed. I still don't see that Family Court is necessary to get any of them.

http://www.protectionorder.org/protection_orders.htm

Protection Order applies to domestic violence by a "family or household member". Not sure that can apply to homosexual couples or not.

No Contact Order is criminal, and thus not always the best option.

Restraining Order is coupled with "divorce, legal separation, paternity or child custody case." All of which may not apply to a couple who wants to possibly work things out and the offender take part in a batterers program.

Anti-Harassment order is intended for cases in which there is no physical abuse.

I'm running out of time. I gotta go, but I wanted to respond to at least one more thing.

And if we are talking about understanding, then how do you stay angry at people for taking a stand against something that they believe is wrong on a fundamental level. Whatever either side believes, I see no reason to get angry about it. Frustrated maybe but not angry.

Who said I was angry and not frustrated?

I'm frustrated that Christians are trying constantly to control government. I'm frustrated that "God said so" is the only answer I tend to get when I ask people why they think homosexuality is wrong, and yet try to apply this fundamental belief on others who might not even believe in a God. Whether I believe homosexuality is itself wrong or not doesn't matter. I will always fight for their equal rights because they're human just as much as anyone else in this country, and their sexuality doesn't infringe on mine or anyone else's rights.

All I see it come down to on the other side is the idea of keeping marriage "pure". And yet more Christians seem to be outraged at homosexuality rather than divorce, something that is continually threatening the "sanctity" of marriage more every year. Why are there not Christians demanding a law to make it harder to divorce? Why are there not Christians picketing and protesting at the funerals of divorced men? How come no one thinks "God hates divorcees"? It just seems to me a lot of Christians are trying to defend the purity of something that isn't pure to begin with anymore.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Pride? I mean I can understand the religious claiming religious aspects of marriage but as for the other side, all I see is that their pride is hurt.

Seperate but equal probably reminds lots of people of Jim Crow.

Anyway, I think an important question to ask is if marriage is a fundamental right in the same sense that freedom of religion and assembly, etc. are. If yes then any consenting adults that choose to enter into such a contract ought to be able to. Personally I don't think rights has anything to do with marriage but bibilical marriage doesn't exactly resemble what most modern Americans practice.

[Hopeful]

Isn't the purpose of voting to let the people decide, especially the State of California? It seems to me that when people disagree with what the majority of the people of the State or the country decide, they want to litigate it, even if the will has been legally expressed. That's the way the people have a say in how they are to be governed, not in the courts.

[tlj009]

Obviously the majority would not vote to take away rights the majority enjoys. But in this case, we have the majority taking away the rights of the minority. How is that in any way just or right?

That is the problem with a Democratic society. I firmly believe that having a single ruling authority would be best. It would just take someone that is perfect to make it a good thing. And that would be Jesus Christ. The reason that I don't seem to care a whole lot about whether or not homosexuals have equal rights is because homosexuality is a sin. And in my idea of a perfect government with Christ as the head, homosexuality is still and sin and basically outlawed. Ironically to many people, that is the same reason that I hate hearing about homosexuals harassed verbally or physically.

It wasn't too long ago the majority thought slavery was fine. Should abolitionists have said, "Well, the majority think it's fine. It happens whether we like it or not. No reason we should strive for blacks to be treated like human beings."

No. I think that you should definitely fight for what you believe. I also think that everyone should take the time to understand the opposition. Understanding is what is lacking in most of these cases. Slavery is an example of some people being treated as property. You don't have to understand property, you just use it. Likewise, workers were and still are in places seen simply as numbers or machines by large business. I am reminded of sharecroppers here. With homosexuality this lack of understanding leads to violence or generally bad behavior. But there are still those who can understand and sympathize and still oppose the practice as a sin. There were those who understood and opposed slavery too for various reasons but I believe that there is a much larger percentage on the homosexuality issue.

Criminals still have rights until proven guilty. Certain rights are taken away because they violated the rights of other American citizens. If I murder you, I take away your right to live. If I steal from you, I take away your right to own the item I stole. If I have sex with another man, how does that infringe on any of your rights as an individual, as an American citizen, or as a human being? How does it hurt you at all? How is it even any of your business at all?

There are crimes that don't infringe on my rights. Polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia doesn't infringe on my rights either. But that is beside the point. The point is that I am willing to bet that the majority feel that homosexuality is wrong on a fundamental level and harmful to society (as I feel all sins are). Maybe not to the extent as murder or stealing which is why the act is not outlawed completely but harmful anyway. People rarely look toward the future to see what kind of problems could arise.

Protection Order applies to domestic violence by a "family or household member". Not sure that can apply to homosexual couples or not.

No Contact Order is criminal, and thus not always the best option.

Restraining Order is coupled with "divorce, legal separation, paternity or child custody case." All of which may not apply to a couple who wants to possibly work things out and the offender take part in a batterers program.

Anti-Harassment order is intended for cases in which there is no physical abuse.

I'm running out of time. I gotta go, but I wanted to respond to at least one more thing.

Restraining Order is usually issued along with divorce or legal separation but not necessarily limited to it. But I would think that protection order would definitely apply since a domestic partner would surely be a household member.

Who said I was angry and not frustrated?

I wasn't saying you as in you specifically. I am talking about people getting angry on the issue from both sides. There has been some really bad behavior on both sides of this issue that is uncalled for.

I'm frustrated that Christians are trying constantly to control government. I'm frustrated that "God said so" is the only answer I tend to get when I ask people why they think homosexuality is wrong, and yet try to apply this fundamental belief on others who might not even believe in a God. Whether I believe homosexuality is itself wrong or not doesn't matter. I will always fight for their equal rights because they're human just as much as anyone else in this country, and their sexuality doesn't infringe on mine or anyone else's rights.

I wish Christians would take control of everything. Maybe not those who simply say that they are Christians, but actual Christians yes. And you are looking at this wrong. It is a good thing for you. Christians are bound our beliefs. We may be hard headed as to what is and what isn't a sin but there should be some fundamentals that you can argue. Such as Christians should not be violent or abusive. That Christians should be acting through love. That homosexuality may be a sin but Christians should not look down on the for that sin because we all sin. And sinning after becoming a Christian is a lot worse offense than before becoming a Christian. Many Christians do not know scripture like they should but as long as scripture is respected as the word of God, you should be able to correct a lot of bad behavior by simply teaching them from the authority that they respect.

All I see it come down to on the other side is the idea of keeping marriage "pure". And yet more Christians seem to be outraged at homosexuality rather than divorce, something that is continually threatening the "sanctity" of marriage more every year. Why are there not Christians demanding a law to make it harder to divorce? Why are there not Christians picketing and protesting at the funerals of divorced men? How come no one thinks "God hates divorcees"? It just seems to me a lot of Christians are trying to defend the purity of something that isn't pure to begin with anymore.

I agree about divorce. I think that homosexuality is simply a newer problem. Divorce is a problem but our society has accepted it a right. Why? Because somewhere along the lines it became easier and easier to get a divorce. More and more people started getting divorces and it became acceptable instead of something to be ashamed of. In short, the battle against divorce has been lost. Maybe it will come around again some day. Either way, I think that Christians have been losing ground on marriage for a long time now. And I really don't know how to get back what was lost.