Aspirant ([info]aspirant) wrote,
@ 2008-11-11 04:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
This is how I have alawys felt on this subject.

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]banecrow
2008-11-11 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Hey Ian while I agree that gays should be able to marry I did vote yes on Prop 8 out here in California. Two times it was voted on and the prop to allow gay marriage was not passed by the votes. Finally the 4 California supreme court judges decided to go against the voters and allow same sex marriage. While I personally agree this should be allowed, how it happened is NOT acceptable. We are a country for the people by the people. To decide that this is going to be allowed and ignore 4 million voters is not acceptable in this country by my book. It brings up the question of what are the supreme court judges going to ignore next, if precedent is set now that they can get away with that. This was one of the big things that got a lot of people to vote yes on Prop 8.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ralph_the_gnome
2008-11-11 11:06 pm UTC (link)
Not being a California voter I do not truly have a dog in the fight. However I must call to mind Brown vs. Board of Education. There is no question that the majority vote at that time was for segregation. The Supreme Court acted against the will of the people, at least the majority of the people. They did so for what they saw as a just interpretation of our Constitution-a justification the California Supreme Court used invoking the state Constitution.

I assume (please tell me if I am wrong) that you would have supported the decision in Brown as most 21st century Americans do. I am curious then what your thoughts are on the difference between that court decision and the one in California that Prop 8 overturned?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]banecrow
2008-11-12 11:59 pm UTC (link)
Ok first off. How you can even compare the 2 I do not understand.

Prop 8 is fundamentally about the definition of a word. That word being marriage. The dictionary definition of marrage is as follows "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc"

Now you hear the commercials about gays wanting equal rights but what you do not hear about is the fact that under the California law same sex partners can get what is called Domestic Partnership Agreement. Tom Brougham a gay rights activist came up with this and it was designed to include everything about marriage except sexual orientation.

So now we go back to California. Twice it was put to the vote to decide if the "definition" of marriage should be changed and twice people voted against this. The 4 supreme court judges of California decided to overrule the voters choice who wanted to stick to traditional values and definitions. The fact that the judges ignored the voters on something like this is what upset me and why I voted Yes on 8.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]banecrow
2008-11-13 12:25 am UTC (link)
Oh and to be quite fair. Both the commercials for and against were saying some really outrageous stuff. Both sides were trying to scare or shock the voters into voting one way or another. But then I do not like voting on something without trying to look into it myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ralph_the_gnome
2008-11-13 02:26 pm UTC (link)
Like I said, not a California voter so there are many things you have said here that I was not aware of and have helped me see your point of view. I have never seen these commercials you mentioned so it is impossible for me to comment on them. I was also unaware of the civil union provided for in California.

I suppose I was unclear in my previous message. How can I compare the two? In both cases there was a democratic majority that was voting to maintain a certain legal status quo that had been in effect for generations and then a high court based on the constitution struck down this law saying it was unjust and not protected by the constitution. In one case it was the southerns states, about race, the court was the Supreme Court and the Constitution was federal. In the other the state was California, about orientation, the court was the California Supreme court and the constitution was state. These are the parallels and the differences I see.

As far as it being just about a word, I respectfully disagree. While in the case of rights guaranteed under state law I am sure that the civil union provides the same rights and privileges. Federal law is another matter. There are over two hundred rights, small and large, that are guaranteed to those "married" not unionized but married. While local California officials may grant those rights there is no guarantee that if you leave the state that a place, such as my home state of Georgia, will recognize your rights on any level.

In light of the existing California law I can see why you voted the way you did. In your position I would have voted differently and I hope you can see now how I saw parallels between the judicial rulings in both cases.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…