November 10, 2008
-
Arnold Schwarzenegger: ‘We will maybe undo’ Prop 8
Arnold Schwarzenegger has suggested that the courts in California may undo the vote of Prop 8.
The voters of California voted to stop homosexual couples from marrying.
The Governor said, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”
He believes that once again the courts will overturn the will of the people.
Here is the link: Link
Do you think the courts should overturn the will of the voters?
Comments (355)
I’m done thinking.
Goddamn, I hope so.
Yes. Or no. =P
Let the votes stay the way.
The votes are of Californians, so respect what the majority of them have chosen.
maybe……
They better not!!!! Even if I were not in favor of Prop 8, the PEOPLE voted!!! If the courts can negate what the people say then the whole point of voting is negated and we are no longer a DEMOCRATIC Republic.
@niez_cho - Exactly!
The courts already did. It should’ve never been put to a vote.
Everytime I think they won’t, they do. Probably… gotta save the people from themselves.
Occasionally.
courts,,, hmmm,,, i have a court date today,,, hahahaha,,, if a judge wants to charge someone with contempt of court,,, id be a prime target,,, and completly guilty of the crime,,,
reckon the judge will be dissapointed that i refuse to pay any fine?
i have no doubt a court would overturn the will of the people,,,
why do people pay attention to courts??? thats what id like to know.
I think they should, I mean, people deserve to be happy – straight AND gay.
i hope they do! and then keep it that way
Even though I am not in favor of Prop 8, I think it would be disrespectful to Democracy to just reverse a state-wide referendum like that.
Is it bad if I say that I really hope so?
Question, would the whole thing be made a moot point if the national government passes some sort of thing on this?
(Very technical terms, there.)
It is hard to say but I suspect they will. Judges tend to think they are smarter than the rest of us.
I would like to know how people would respond were the situation in reverse.
If Prop 8 had NOT passed, would it be right of the courts to overturn the voter’s decision?
I think the answer should be “no” either way.
if the court can overturn the votes of the majority, then I don’t see any reason why they let people vote in the first place.
the “will of the people” is discriminatory and unconstitutional…the courts SHOULD step in
If the people in a legal election/poll have chosen by a majority vote to close the issue, why would we allow the courts to overturn that? Doesn’t that make a mockery of our democratic system, and a fool of every voter? Why vote if the voice of the people does not count?
Anyone who would say it’s ok for a court to overturn a majority vote has got to pull there headout! When courts start dictating laws instead of letting voters decide which laws they want, then its not a democracy anymore.
I absolutely hate Prop 8 and think it’s bigoted. That being said, the only way they should overturn it is if Prop 8 is unconstitutional in some way. The people have spoken, and the LGTBQ and Ally community obviously has more work ahead of them to stop the hate and prejudice. When the community is ready to accept people of all sexual orientations who are in loving relationships and deserve to have the rights of everyone else, it will overturn naturally. It’s a long road, but shortcuts will only breed discontent and widen the divide.
When Britain practised slavery this was overturned in spite of the majority’s attitude, because it was based on prejudice and discrimination.
No
Usually I’d say no. But this is a case of equality, so Im going to say yes.
And really, anyone that disagrees needs to get their head in check.
no, i would think THAT would be considered unconstitutional.
No, but I do think they should take the day off to personally walk around and ask people WTH? I disagree with the passing of Proposition Eight and believe it to be wholeheartedly ridiculous, but they should go through the proper motions so that the marriages are accepted without any type of foul play. I’m sure that the process is difficult enough for the parties involved.
Sure do. It’s the courts responsibility to ensure that the first amendment rights are guaranteed to the citizens, regardless of what the electorate thinks. A pretty good example of this is something like Brown Vs. Board of Education. I think that gay marriage will go to the supreme court eventually, even though it’s supposed to be a federal issue. It’s like abortion, we’ll never stop hearing the end of all of this.
If they do it is no longer a democracy. Oh wait, our government isn’t really a democracy anyways. It’s a machine.
This is one of those things that goes right down ideological lines. Prop 8 is based on modern Scofield-republican-christianity and is going to die a slow death. But it will die.
More and more christians are waking up to the great sins that have been committed in the couple of centuries by the pharasees of Christianity. They will lose in the end because God always wins in the end. (Besides people are smarter than they realize.)
I spoke a great deal about this in my sept 28 sermon if you care to read:
“sometimes we read rules like “don’t murder” in the Bible, and we take that to mean we should shun a young lady whose had an abortion and hold her beneath our contempt. Other times we’ll read things like bishops shouldn’t be given to alcohol and conclude that alcohol itself is a sin. We sometimes read that adultery and promiscuity are frowned upon, then shout at the top of our lungs that people whom we label as homosexual should be treated as second class citizens.
“You remember those armbands the kids used to wear. They said WWJD: What-Would-Jesus-Do. We should be asking ourselves what would Jesus really do? It’s because of this aspect of my attitude one of the questions I’m often asked is what I think of organized religion. I’m fine with them as long as they don’t get in the way of God’s work.”
Most people are stupid, though.
absolutely NOT! If the courts are allowed to overturn votes, then one day the courts will be able to overturn our votes in a presidential election, and you tell me just how happy the Obama supports would be if that were allowed? NO NO NO… NEVER overturn votes… that would be the beginning of the end for this country.
im taking this theo; dan. http://weblog.hoodstars.com/thegreatchristopher/681757362/calif-gov-we-will-maybe-undo-prop-8.html
i will give you credit for it…..
hugs dan
here ya go…..
@TH1SL1F3 - Fuck you, cunt.
@SladeTheGreyFox - agreed
@Legendairy - Civil Rights would never have happened if the courts didn’t overturn the will of the people when needed.
@TH1SL1F3 - Depending on who you voted for, they did that in 2000
Yes, the court should over turn it. Hell, the National Supreme Court should rule on it.
It is a breach of civil liberties to deny people the right to marry based on sexual identity.
Schools did not want to desegregate. It was still a violation of civil rights not to.
Many people did not want black men, or women to have the right to vote, and yet amendments were passed -despite majority voter opinion- because it was the right thing to do under the constitution.
Equal rights for all, or justice for none.
Yes – they need to do the right thing.
@Legendairy - Let me rephrase that, actually…Civil Rights would never have happened if the Courts didn’t rule against the will of the majortiy when needed.
That makes more sense. The other implied too much.
legislatures follow the will of the people, courts follow the letter of the law. That’s the way it ought to be. So if the law is in line with the will of the people then the courts should follow the will of the people. If it is not then the courts should go against the will of the people. That’s all there is to it. Period.
If you want to follow the will of the people than you do it through ballot initiatives, and representatives in the legislature as well as though to a lesser extent, the executive branch. Vote out people who don’t follow their will and vote in people who do.
The day courts start caving to the “will of the people” regardless of logic and analysis, is the day courts fail to function altogether and our Democracy fundamentally suffers as a consequence.
its unconstitutional, so i hope they do overturn it
EQUALITY FOR ALL!!
Wow, what a dumb question. If you undermine the will of the people you undermine democracy and the Republic this country was built on.
But unfortunately it’s only a matter of time before the people want a socialist, fascist country with no moral laws.
Eventually the government will have to declare what marriage is, but until then, let each state decide.
The court should not overturn a vote made by the people.
@BebstersBlog2 -
You keep your morals to yourself, and I’ll keep mine to mine. I won’t make you marry anyone you don’t wish to. Nor will I make you marry.
You keep your hands out of who I wish to marry. And keep your say out of IF I can marry.
Copasetic?
i was against prop 8, with the passion, but the people voted and it passed, and they should have the right to live with what they wanted. regardless of how much some court, or vocal minority wants it overturned.
The fact is, we didn’t get to ‘vote’ on other equal rights initiatives, so why should this one be any different. Do we really believe that if we had voted on women’s right to vote or segregation laws, that they would have passed back then? Absolutely not. The ‘majority’ would have voted against it, given society at the time. But the governement intervined and did what was best for equality, and the same should have been done here.
It never should have been on the ballott in the first place.
@Chronicals_of_a_Chairman_V2 - Yeah, fuck desegregation while were at it!
this is sad. all the way around.
@Legendairy - There are two ways on the top of my head that this could make sense. If the constitutional amendment serves to be inherently contradictory to other parts of the constitution. This isn’t exactly “overturning” the will of the people since the entire constitution represents the will of the people. Rather the courts would be demanding that this inherent contradiction be resolved through legislature or another amendment process.
Likewise if the amendment passed oversteps the bounds of what is considered the domain of states rights. In such a case the courts would be declaring the amendment contradictory to federal law and/or the United States Constitution. In that case again courts aren’t acting overly “activist” but again following the letter of the law and demanding that the legal system remain consistent. This would create a states rights vs. federal rights issue that would have to be resolved at a nationwide level. Not to worry though, most surveys suggest that most people consider the marriage issue to be a matter that ought to be resolved by State and local government.
Provided the courts have rational justification they can overturn anything. They are not beholden to the people and none of this “damages” democracy. Since in the end the people can in turn overturn ANY declaration from the courts by passing an amendment that adjusts the language of the constitution, state or federal as necessary, to eliminate the contradiction.
The courts also have to be careful, since they have little power to enforce anything. Any of their declarations can simply be ignored by the Executive branch which is beholden to the people for re-election. That was a serious concern in the courts during the civil rights movement. The courts literally feared that the executive branch would just ignore them and that would render the supreme court virtually powerless. However, an executive branch ignoring the proclamations of the court would be as much of an irresponsible failure to stand up to their constitutional obligations as would the courts simply ruling in favor of a law just because it has popular support and independent of its logical content.
Anyway, my point is the courts don’t have anywhere near the power to hurt democracy. They are a powerful force, but the scope of their mandate is small.
I’ll go with no. And I’m not sure that this is really a fair comparison to slavery, or even women’s lib. Gay rights is a completely different issue, I think.
We have same sex marriages here, but we seperate religion and state more than you guys. It always makes me uncomfortable when american politicians drag religion into politics like they do *shudder*
But this is NOT why i’m here; where is the adorable kitty pic i spied that led me here? it has its paw upto its mouth as if stiffling a chuckle. I want it for myself …quite badly.
@fyo_films - How so? Because homosexuality is a ‘choice’? Prove that theory if that’s your arguement. Discrimination is still discrimination.
@drakonskry - well if they do what they are supposed to do, they will continue to be vocal and maybe it can come to a vote again. its not like this is the end of the road.
its just part of the democratic process, they have the right to choose, and they chose. it shouldnt be up to some court to decide. if they want to change it they will have to wait until the next election season.
If you look at it not from a Christian, moral or personal perspective but from a MONETARY and FISCAL perspective, California is silly to not allow gay marriage. Think of the tens of thousands of tourist revenue dollars that there are to be made. These people for the most part do not have children or anyone or anything else to spend their money on except themselves so… if they want to have a big wedding in your state and invite several close friends, stay in your hotels, use your services, etc. is revenue really a bad thing? Las Vegas was stupid to not institute gay marriage here. We could have made a killing in revenue. California, let the courts overturn the decision and perhaps you’ll get to do away with state income tax. Think about that for a red hot minute. That means a little more money in everyone’s pockets if you allow gay people to come to your state and get married. Couldn’t you use a little extra pocket money?
I voted no on prop 8, but I would hope that people would understand that if this gets overturned by the courts, everyone who voted yes on prop 8 will have their civil rights violated just like those affected by prop 8. You have to allow the people who votes yes’ voice to be heard on this. It would be unconstitutional to tell them their vote doesn’t count.
The solution to this, reopen prop 8 and let the voters decide once more. Let the people decide for themselves. Letting the courts do this is going to empower them more than they should be.
They’re pretty much saying that the courts have more power than the people. What happened to checks and balances?
The ‘will’ of people? I don’t think it’s the ‘will’ of the majority of people in California to stop gay marriages. I think it’s the ‘will’ of evil narcissistic religious freaks. And they’re not people.
Plus, the ‘will’ of people should have no power to take away the rights of others.
Think back to the times when white people were not ‘willing’ to allow their children attend schools with black children.
@Legendairy - They better not!!!! Even if I were not in favor of Prop 8, the PEOPLE voted!!! If the courts can negate what the people say then the whole point of voting is negated and we are no longer a DEMOCRATIC Republic.
The Warren Courts overturned the Jim Crow laws of the South.
Clearly, policies of bigotry and discrimination should be accepted. Will of the people, after all.
Democracy: Mob rule with minority discrimination.
I would go with no, just because the right to vote is sort of being set aside. But in this case i hope the courts change the the law because of the discrimination of it’s contents.
@PSUnited1 - They’re pretty much saying that the courts have more power than the people. What happened to checks and balances?
The courts are part of the check-and-balance system, buddy.
@PSUnited1 - That would be checks and balances at work.
FUCK YES. If Arnold were our Prime Minister, we would worship the ground he walks on. I’d do anything he says.
And if he says “come with me if you want to live” I will cream my pants for the fact that he is our Prime Minister. Calfornians, take the same attitude!
@niez_cho - Let the votes stay the way.
The votes are of Californians, so respect what the majority of them have chosen.
Are you fucking kidding me?
State propositions are meant to decide on matters of public policy: Construction projects and issues of governance. What Prop 8 did was to withhold rights from a minority group. In a democracy, the rights of the minority shouldn’t be stripped and stomped only because they’re in the minority.
In California, Muslims would never be able to outvote the Christian block. In a place like Missouri, Chinese-Americans would lose badly in numbers to Caucasian and African-Americans. Though, none of these groups deserve to have rights taken away or withheld just because they wouldn’t have the bodies or funds to muster a 50%+ vote.
Prop 8 was very close: 52% to 48%. A 2% majority shouldn’t be enough to strip away the fundamental rights of a minority group.
nope.. A vote is a vote of the people’s voice. For a court to overturn the will of the people would undermine what democracy is.
(I’d say the same thing if it was the other way around too)
@cuteluvr21 - Ditto.
it depends
but in this case, yes
@TH1SL1F3 - absolutely NOT! If the courts are allowed to overturn votes, then one day the courts will be able to overturn our votes in a presidential election, and you tell me just how happy the Obama supports would be if that were allowed? NO NO NO… NEVER overturn votes… that would be the beginning of the end for this country
You sound like George Wallace.
The will of the people kept Jim Crow laws on the books. It kept anti-miscegenation laws on the books. It kept “separate but equal” on the books. And so forth and so forth.
No… only because that is what was voted upon. It’s what the majority wanted, however much I may think it should have gone the other way
@SimplyPynki - And when our morals contradict one another’s the person who is most powerful wins.
Like I said, fascism. The only way we can avoid it is to use God’s morals. If you study the history of different countries you’ll find that all great countries followed God’s laws, consciously or not, and when they stopped following them disaster struck.
NO. the courts should respect what the majority of the people choose. Especially in this case.
@Rebs - When Britain practised slavery this was overturned in spite of the majority’s attitude, because it was based on prejudice and discrimination.
But you know what, America is a Christian nation.
Many devout Christians sincerely believed in the legitimacy of slavery. They even had Biblical passages to support their contentions. It was wrong for the Union to impose and alter the Southern way of life. The values of liberal New England were imposed on traditions of good Southern Christians. The Southern States voted to seceded. It was wrong of the Federal government to step in.
We see the same here. Prop 8 upheld tradition and Biblical morality. Unlike during the Civil War, this time, the liberals were voted down.
Um, well, then can we “maybe undo” the president-elect?
@maripositas313 - NO. the courts should respect what the majority of the people choose. Especially in this case.
It should have never been their choice to begin with.
In America, 95% of the population shouldn’t be able to strip the rights of 5% of the population on popular vote. Proposition 8 is just as silly as if the rights of Californian Buddhists or Fillipinos were put up on the auction block.
They better. It’s ridiculous to grant a people a right and then take it away from them. Marriage (and I use that term as a union between two people no matter what their genders) shouldn’t be a privilege. Some people legitimately want to get married, and other’s don’t. Why make those who do suffer because some religious fanatics ‘got out the vote’?
I still say though, we should just stop using the term “marriage” except in religious clause. I mean, if you want a religious marriage, sure, but there should be a separate document from a state that lists it as a union. I’m an agonstic/borderline athiest heterosexual woman and I would never get ‘married’, but I would consider a civil union. (If I weren’t tired, I would continue to argue this, but…I’m just going to leave it at that…)
Lol he’s so eloquent.
But yes, I think the court should [be able to] do that. Because the majority isn’t always fair, and the courts try to maintain equality and justice for all. There is a point at which democracy should take the back seat to fairness, where the public is not quite on the same page. Obviously the majority who voted to ban gay marriage are not those who are directly affected by it, so I think they don’t have the right to even make that decision. It doesn’t help or harm the people who are against gay marriage personally if two homosexuals want to get married.
@jediwa72 - Um, well, then can we “maybe undo” the president-elect?
The Federal Constitution laid out procedually, the rules of the Presidential election and of the transition period. There can be no room for any court to “undo” the results of the Presidential election given the explicit wording of the constitution. So don’t give me this bullshit anology.
Need I remind you that it was only with the interpretations of the Warren Court that Jim Crow laws were overturned in the South? Southern states individually affirmed things like inter-racial marriage laws. These were “undone.” And properly so.
Considering how broadly they’ve been interpreting the Constitution lately, I think the courts could probably include freedom to marry in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Should they be able to make such broad interpretations of the Constitution, rather than literal ones? That’s more of an ideological issue. I feel that in a case of equality and individual rights involving a minority of the population, it’s not really fair to leave it up to a vote of the general populace. I’m sure the South would’ve voted to keep slavery had they been given the option, but that would’ve been barbaric.
No, but that will never stop any court from doing so.
NO. If that’s the case, we might as well not even bother voting, lol! Scharzenegger…I used to think he was the bomb, lol, when I was younger, lol. “Ill be back,” Dan, rofl!
Cheryl
@huginn - Simmer down…I was using what one would call “sarcasm”.
@huginn - I concede that you DO have a very good point.
But I’m still glad if the courts do not overturn the will of the people in this case because I am against gay marriage. =)
@maripositas313 - I’m not sure whether this comment should make me laugh or cry.
This whole problem started with the courts over-stepping their authority, which I’m against regardless of the issue. I fail to see how allowing them to do so again is going to HELP. If they do, I think they will be a living definition of a failure in governing.
i believe voters had no right to vote on this proposition. What’s the big deal about homosexuality? It’s just a tiny part of the human race.
Instead of wasting time trying to control other people, those who voted “yes, eliminate same-sex marriage” should learn to prioritize what’s really important. Our economy for one (it sucks). The war (is it another neverending war? can we please have our soldiers back?). Jobs (unemployment rates have started to rise again). there are numerous other problems that we should deal with. THEN IF we have time, THEN all the religious people can complain about not having enough control over the rest of the world. stop trying to take over the world, religious people. we have the right to not believe in your religion. so leave us alone already.
yes b/c the court’s purpose is to interpret the constitution. and the CA supreme court has already stated that the constitution holds inherent rights of equality for everyone. with the passage of prop 8, the people have voted on something that is unconstitutional.
what’s the point of taking the vote to the people if the courts are only going to legislate from the bench anyway. just do away with referendums all together because its obvious they don’t count for shit. the voters of california have voted yes on this issue twice now…a third time would just be retarded ~ jack
Well I would say that no government should overturn the vote of its people, especially a government that PRIDES itself on the importance of the vote of its people.
That being said, the government also prides itself on the RIGHTS of said people. I feel that Proposition 8 is, at some foundational level, unconstitutional. Now I don’t know the technicalities of the Constitution that would prove me wrong, so I’m not claiming to be a know-it-all here. But I can’t believe that our Constitution would call for denying a group of voting, tax-paying, property-owning citizens a right that others are granted. So I won’t say whether it is or isn’t unconstitutional. But if it is…. then hell yes, overturn that motherf***er.
For this, yes.
What the fuck did we vote against it for if he can just go and change it? Stupid. I hate living here in California.. Our governer is the freaking terminator for goddsake…I suppose anything is possible.
As a Christian I agree that even though a lot of people don’t agree with gay marriage me being one, and don’t get me wrong I don’t hate gay people I have alot of friends that are gay and I love them all the same, I just wasn’t raised to believe in it, and frankly I believe that it is dishonoring to God, I treat them equally regardless of my opinions on their lifestyles, I don’t have it for myself and it is their choice. I know that they don’t see it as fair that they can’t get married, but the only real purpose of marriage is to create children, two people of the same sex can’t do that without a third party, or adopting, what I’m saying is they can’t bear children by themselves so really what is the real point for them to get married, I know they’d say it has to do with love and that is the main reason for me and most people marriage for love, but what about the birth of a family, it’s not possible with two people of the same sex. I’m asking what’s the point?
To say that I am descriminating because these are my opinions and that I voted Yes on 8 is wrong in itself, because those that say that don’t know my reasons or the other voters reasons though a lot of the time people that do say that about some of those that rallied and voted yes are descriminating are right,but they have a right to stand up for what they beliece in as we all do, so it’s not fair, but that in itself is descrimination, because they are ridiculing us for having a belief or opinion, and on top of that lumping us the ones that don’t hate gay people in with the ones that do. Some people are selfish and I would advise those who want to judge us for voted Yes on 8 should ask our reasons why before they jumpt to conclusions and accuse us of descrimination that makes me very upset, because I don’t find it fair that our voices should be silenced, that is the main reason that people don’t like talking about it because if they voted yes on 8 most of the time they are living in fear that they will in turn be hated for their opinion. At the same time it is not fair to hate people because of their orientation, it is also not fair to hate innocent people who are not descriminating based on their voice and opinion which we all have a right to. I love all people regardless on their orientation, or religion, or politica belief or position, or anything, but is it fair to in turn try to take away our right to an opinion and freedom of speech, and wrongly accuse us of descrimination before asking us our reasons why we feel the way we feel? No. That is the thing that is not constitutional, as for the Unconstitutional thing for gay marriage I’m afraid I have read the constitution and I don’t remember where exactly that was said, please some one explain that to me because I don’t see how that was in the constitution actually. I don’t understand, but hey that is my opinion and even if you don’t agree with me please don’t hate me for it. I don’t hate anyone based on their opinions and stuff, So I hope I can ask the same of everyone who reads this please?
I don’t think it should be over-turned. I don’t agree with Prop 8 but I respect the decision that the majority chose.
The courts are doing their job; to make sure the people don’t go crazy and start contradicting themselves. The people should not have had the right to vote on this in the first place.
Signing something into law based strictly on opinion when it hurts others at NO gain to the proponents MUST be made illegal.
Prop 8 contradicts the very decisions that made Prop 22 illegal in the first place, without undoing the decision. Religious people are fucking stupid.
why have people vote on the issue in the first place? the governator is in way over his head sometimes, i’m not a fan at all.
Never, if the courts can overturn the vote of the people then what is the use of voting? Why not just let the courts decide everything?
this should never have been put up for vote anyways. so yes, they should overturn it.
No. Why did they vote in the first place if they’re just going to overturn it?
i think the courts should jail the voters……jk
normally i think the courts should let what the voters want stand (hence, democratic society and all that jazz), but in cases where there is obvious discrimination, maybe they should reverse it. I will never understand how someone can say that gay/lesbian marriage somehow lessens “straight” marriage. I’m straight, and so far, my marriage is just as strong as it was before Ellen and Portia married………I’m just sayin!!!
Eh, I don’t really care. It’s going to go back and forth anyway.
because of the nature of this issue, i say yes. most definitely YES.
people don’t know what they want when their minds are clouded with bigotry.
I laugh at all the ppl saying no, it’s undemocratic to go against the majority….did they ever thing about the civil rights of 1964? No. The majority of ppl didn’t want to give minorities equal rights then but it had to be done! Just like proposition h8 should be overruled now. All of America’s ppl pay the same taxes, so all of America’s ppl should befenift from the same rights.
When it comes to something like gay marriage, definitely.
Uh no. That would be stupid.
That is not very democratic.
Will of the people? It was fucking 2%. Some will, to take the rights away of an entire demographic….
Yes, the courts are there to balance the legistlature. A 52% of the population should not be able to change the constitution, that figure barely squeeks by as a majority. This majority wins business would only work if prop 8 somehow took away from the majority or would be at some sort of cost to the majority, so because its not, a vote for whatever-the-majority-feels-like doesn’t stick constitutionally, and its a prime example of the tyranny of the majority.
hell no I don’t.
They wanted people to vote. They did. Just cause it didn’t turn out how you wanted doesn’t mean you go and change it. Wait a few years and vote on it again.
Get over it. Boo Hoo.
@jediwa72 - Simmer down…I was using what one would call “sarcasm”
Sarcastic comments are not immune to stupidity.
I asked this same question in my blog. The only question I have is
this: if the courts over turn the peoples vote and decide that no
person can be denied marriage if the people wanting to be married are
consenting adults, DOES THAT MEAN my sister and I are allowed to get
married?
(For the record, I do NOT want to my marry my sister, it’s just a question.)
They better overturn it, regardless of how many people voted for the ban. Segregation used to be pretty popular too, didn’t it? Didn’t make it right though.
@onlyFORaLILwhile - They wanted people to vote.
The bigots petitioned for the proposition. Supporter of equal right didn’t propose the proposition.
They did. Just cause it didn’t turn out how you wanted doesn’t mean you go and change it.
Just because Jim Crow laws were passed doesn’t mean that Blacks had to be all upset about it.
Wait a few years and vote on it again.
Yeah. It took decades before the Warren Court came along. Patience is a virtue!
Get over it. Boo Hoo.
Boo Hoo. MLK was a whinner.
When it is to strive for equality for ALL citizens, yes.
@not_me_77 - The whole point of the court system is not to please the voters, or even serve the constituency…they don’t have one for that very reason (being appointed instead of elected). Judges, and the court system, are in place to decide legality, not popularity. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and that is what the judges are in place for…interpreting the Constitution in a form we can use today. This applies both at a federal and state level, with local courts having the obligation to look at not only the Constitution, but also state and local laws. It’s one of the main reasons the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is the court’s solemn duty to rule on Proposition 8…whatever their decision.
The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the constitution. The California constitution now says that marriage is between a man and a woman. If the courts are having some problems figuring out what that means, maybe they should go back to kindergarten and learn how to read.
The people have spoken. If that is overturned by the courts, then democracy has been flushed down the toilet.
Yes, they should overturn Prop 8. It is in violation of the First Amendment.
@huginn - it happens. I’m so damn tired of hearing about all this.
What if people voted to keep slavery legal?
I’m not compelled to either side. But I’m not sure why it was a vote by the people, this strikes me as a matter of law that judges have to rule on. It’s the Judicial branch’s job to interpret these sorts of things.
-David
@saxy_grrl - //The California constitution now says that marriage is between a man and a woman.//
The Proposition is in violation of the Federal Constitution, i.e. the US Constitution; specifically, the First Amendment.
So what would happen to democracy?
seriously? The people have voted, twice… Whether you agree with prop 8 or not, that is not the question. If the majority voted for something, it should stick. Thats how democracy works, remember?
that is complete bullsh*t! this country calls itself a ‘democracy’? if we let something like that happen, we may as well have no voice, and no vote.
STFU people, and wait another 4 years to try again.
Although I wish the votes would have read differently, I think it is dangerous to start a pattern where the courts can overturn voters.
No, otherwise, blacks still wouldn’t be able to vote.
@Legendairy - Uhm…
The courts have done it in the past…
desegregation, interracial marriage, etc…
The majority isn’t right just because they are the majority.
Yes. Just because more people are ignorant doesn’t mean they’re right. We live in a republic, not a democracy, this should be kept to a decision made by elected officials.
arnolds funny. And yes it should. Whatever brings back equality.
@greenbird321 - that is complete bullsh*t! this country calls itself a ‘democracy’?
Yes. A republic founded on the spirits of liberty and equal rights for all.
if we let something like that happen, we may as well have no voice, and no vote.
The United States is, in its nature and history, a melting pot of peoples, religions, and ideologies. We have Asians living side-by-side with Whites and Blacks. We have Muslims working alongside Christians and Buddhists.
A democracy is majority rule with minority rights. Any given minority, by virtue of being small in number, would never be able to outvote the majority and public opinion, This is good and fair with questions of public policy. Yet, something is very wrong when the majority actually votes and restricts the rights of the minority.
We saw this with inter-racial marriage laws of the late 1800′s and later, in the early 1900′s, with Jim Crow laws. Taking marriage away from same-sex couples falls in this category– a rape and stabbing of civil rights.
Civil rights stand on the ideas of equality, and not to vote. The measure shouldn’t have been put to popular opinion to begin with.
STFU people, and wait another 4 years to try again.
Wow, you’re so empty-headed. Ever heard of mid-term elections?
I think it is absolutely wrong for the courts to overturn something that’s been voted on by the people. The courts are not supposed to have that much power. Go read the Constitution. This is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” At least it’s supposed to be.
****Pop Quiz****
What amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or the Calfornia state Constitution, gives someone the right to marry?
What is the point of voting if they can just say, oh well, screw the majority, we’ll just overturn what they decided?
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - 9th
The same Amendment that gives you the right to breath.
Yes, because it’s unconstitutional and wrong. Vox Dei > Vox Populi.
Hi there! Thanks for the add.
@huginn - So pretty much we can all have our opinions and comments, whether sarcastic or not, and if they don’t tickle your fancy then they are presumed “stupid”. Well, excuse me for not being of your intellect. However, you can rest assured I would prefer my stupid sarcasm (as I’m sure many others would) over your biased bigotry anyday.
uh…You people who are saying yes, do you realize what you are saying? You are giving the court of a state the power to overturn YOUR democratic right to vote. You sheep do not deserve freedom if you can’t see what you’re really advocating.
@huginn - Huginn owning as usual.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a lot of the civil rights we’ve granted to people were done so at a time when the majority of the people still were against such rights being given. If the people of a state voted to kill all (insert group here) would that be a “wrong” thing for the courts (or anyone else) to step in and reverse? No. Of course not. Democracy only goes so far, at some point we also have to grant equal rights to everyone. Sometimes that’s not the popular decision, but it’s the right one to make.
@jediwa72 - I meant that just because your argument was structured sarcastically, doesn’t mean that it’s immune to criticism. You did further it as a semi-serious argument for your position.
Here, I rebutted the argument seriously. From that (and your non-response), you argument only happens to be stupid. So no, a sarcastic argument isn’t necessarily stupid.
If they overturn Prop 8 I think we should overturn Obama as president. What’s the difference? Are we a democracy or what?
i’m not saying i agree with Prop 8, but what the hell was the point of voters voting in the first place if the courts were just going to overturn it anyway?
In this case, I hope so.
@cuteluvr21 - It violates the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which trumps all state constitutions.
@EilisAngelos - No, the “right” thing here is the constitutional thing, which is equal protection and rights under the law.
@Legendairy - The PEOPLE also supported slavery and segregation for most of this country’s history. It was the courts that changed that discrimination, and it will be the courts which change this one.
Yes. It should be overturned, even if it disappoints people like you.
@Evowookiee - Imagine this scenario if you will. Say the state you live in all of a sudden experiences a surge in population of one particular radical religion. They become the majority in your state. Your state allows people to put mandates to local election (as California does) and passes a proposition that say that you, because you are not of this same religion, are now denied the right to marry. Or hold down a job. Or any other basic right we take for granted in our lives. Even though that was a “majority” that passed it, wouldn’t you want someone standing up and saying “Hey, wait a minute. This isn’t right.”?
@huginn - the civil rights movement of the 60s and this ‘civil rights’ movement are completely different issues. see my blog entry from yesterday.
Ok, listen people.
This country is founded on the princples of majority rules v minority rights.
This means that people get a voice, however, there are times when the voice of the people (Vox Populi) is wrong.
It is up to judicial branch to decide matters of right or wrong (Vox Dei) In this case, as was the case of blacks voting and equal rights, the people decided against this, and the courts’s job is to make a ruling about equal rights here.
You cannot have 2nd class citizens in the United States. It is simply unconstitutional. To have any 2 human beings not have the same rights of any other 2 human beings is wrong.
End of discussion.
He then added: “And things like that, and all these things.”
And no I don’t. -At least, not in this case.
@greenbird321 - the civil rights movement of the 60s and this ‘civil rights’ movement are completely different issues. see my blog entry from yesterday.
No they’re no. I just read your entry, and I think your arguments falls with some pretty straight-foward responses. I’ll give a treatment of it later this afternoon.
I have a take-home midterm to finish up. =)
@greenbird321 - I read your post. It is a life style choice to a certain extent that people cannot just willingly change how they feel, whether homosexuality is a genetic pre-condition (like Bi-polar disorder) or a genetic trait (like Lobed ears) or a complete enviromental result, it doesn’t matter.
I am a black man, and I am telling you it is the same civil rights issue.
You give me a reason why 2 women should not be married that isn’t in the bible.
I could give all the same reasons for a black man and a white woman.
It’s not right either way.
The people are wrong in this instance.
@niez_cho - @Legendairy - @ChrisRusso - @fugu62 -
@EilisAngelos - @Safella - @Wolfemother - @not_me_77 -
@cuteluvr21 - and the like
If you’re willing to take the time to do so, look up “anti-miscegenation laws” on wikipedia. What you’ll notice is that laws against interracial marriage underwent many of the same struggles. The supreme court of California in 1948 declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Much like today, gay marriage was deemed illegal, then the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. The problem with putting issues of civil rights on the ballot is that you are subjecting the rights of citizens to public polls. You are effectively making your fellow citizens victims of the closed-minded and oft-times regressive traditional beliefs of people who are less concerned with the legal constitutionality of their vote than repressing another group. The supreme court is the vanguard of civil rights. Restraining them is merely self-restraint. (“Tyranny of the masses”~ JS Mills)
@huginn - Your reading of the 9th Amendment is a little broad…don’t you think? Its not a right…its an interpretation of the Constitution. I don’t think that the court can find sufficient justification in the 9th to overturn the vote; and if they do then our rights to being the masters of the Government (by the people and for the people) has taken a huge hit.
@EarthsAzureLight - and I’m a black woman, telling you that homosexuality is akin to an eating disorder or alcoholism, except far more socially acceptable and easy for people to delude themselves into believing it’s perfectly okay and right. now, for some background on me: I have plenty of close gay friends, plenty of gay family members, and I go dancing at a gay club on Friday nights. I love people, not their sins. and yes, this is primarily a moral issue.
I can not believe the people who think the courts should have the Power. That is amazing to me California is part of the USA the people voted on this issue this is what they wanted. This is just a sign of the CHANGE in America. where is the power of the people.
@huginn - the 9th amendment reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Where does that say anything about marriage? you first have to show me where marriage is a right, before you can use the 9th amendment to defend it.
@greenbird321 - Moral issues are not legal issues.
The bible and the constitution are two separate entities and the bible has no bearing on the law.
@mightymarce - Well it all depends: What is marriage?
Is marriage a legal binding contract that allows a person to:
-claim each other as beneficiaries on life insurance
-own a home together
-have spousal rights at hospitals
-be power of attorney in case of incapacitation?
-have health insurance together?
Here’s where it breaks down; Prop 8 does not afford any more rights to homosexuals than they all ready have. Already, Homosexual couples can enjoy all of these benefits.
I want to be really clear here: I support Prop 8 as much as I support the move for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage (that’s to say I support NEITHER of them.) I will never believe that Homosexuality is legitimate under God; but I support their right to practice it. But if I would support this proposition, then I would be supporting the legitimizing in something I don’t agree with. Does that make sense?
@huginn - thanks. you beat me to it. too bad people don’t research the inner-workings of the nation they live in. far too few people really get it. “democracy” gets treated as a code-word for an orgy of political repression without redress. just because you have the numbers does not infer that you also have the moral OR ethical high ground. as a nation, we should abhor handing over the rights of our fellow citizens to any evil. it’s just karmically bad!
@mellomar - Yay, finally someone else hit the key words.
@greenbird321 - I can not fathom how you can force your belief that homosexuality is completely and totally a choice (and to compair it to things like alcoholism and eating disorders??) on everyone else, kind of like all those people who voted yes on Prop 8. That’s like me telling you that being black is some how your choice and you should be judged accordingly. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it? And please, PLEASE tell me what ‘proves’ that homosexuality is a “choice”?? Akin to eating disorders none the less! I’m going to make the assumption that you’re also one of those people that think there’s a ‘cure’ for being gay?
As EarthsAzureLight said- ‘Moral issues are NOT legal issues’… This is the whole reasons there’s a separation of church and state.
they better.
the will of the majority should not decide the rights of the minority.
separate but equal can kiss my booty.
@Evowookiee - But whether you agree with it or not shouldn’t be an issue. What should be the issue is that these people are denied rights all other people have.
That is the issue.
If you have an issue with the legal definition and benefits of marriage, then you would have to get rid of straight marriage as well.
@super_cruz - The question is, is marriage a right?
Life, Liberty, and Estate are. I do not believe that marriage is.
Yup, we need to set things straight, even if it means sacrificing a bit of freedom.
@bethechangeyouwish2see - a ‘cure’? no…is there a ‘cure’ for an addiction? no, only the realization that it is an addiction. once denial ends, recovery of your LIFE begins.
I know I’m not going to change anyones’ mind, and I’m much more eloquent in person than in type, so I’ll just leave it at that, unless you’d like to PM me…
@magicalmusicgirl - Yes!
@ChrisRusso - “…that all people are created equal…”
If you give marriage to some, you have to give it to all.
@greenbird321 - Generally bigotry doesn’t change people’s mind.
You base your beliefs on the law on the bible, which is the flaw in your reasoning.
@EarthsAzureLight - Nonsense. There are already many whom we deny marriage to: children, for instance. Those who wish to marry someone against their consent, for another. And even if something is a right, you don’t necessarily give it to all: we believe in the Right of Liberty yet deny it to felons in prison.
I’m not in favor of Prop 8, but I do wish everyone would stop talking about marriage as though it was something that everyone was due.
the idea that eating disorders are a choice makes me sad
they should respect the majority vote. six judges in sacramento should not have the right to overturn what over fifty percent of the population decided. that’s what voting is FOR.
@mellomar - in many cases, you make the first step into the addiction and disease that is an eating disorder. I know, because I’m recovering from being in the throes of one for the past 4 years.
@ChrisRusso - Children can get married though, perhaps not in every state, but in many states. We are also not talking about non-consenting people.
You are making a straw man argument here.
Suppose I am talking about 2 consenting adults. Explain the difference in why 2 can get married and 2 can’t?
@mellomar - I apologize for that- it’s just the way it was made to seem in the prior comment. That the idea was that eating disorders, alcoholism and homosexuality were all ‘choice’… So I addressed it as such. Sorry about that.
@EarthsAzureLight - for the same reason that 3 cannot. It is against the law.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - That’s not an argument for why something should be against the law. Drinking alcohol was against the law. It was once illegal for blacks to rebel against their owners. It was once illegal for women to vote.
You need to come up with an argument for why it should be illegal other than “it’s illegal”
You sound like a 6 year old saying that.
No! the majority has spoken
@EarthsAzureLight - you didn’t ask why. you said to explain the difference why 2 can and 2 cannot. the difference is for that one of the groups. it is ilegal.
why it is illegal is a different question and not what you originally asked.
@Krissy_Cole - Civil Rights would never have happened if the Courts didn’t rule against the will of the majority when needed. Very good point! I agree that the courts should overturn the will of the voters in this case.
I hope they do. It is wrong for the bigotry of some to stand in the way of the rights of others.
Nope. The voters have spoken.
Unless they let me and my 4 poster bed get married. Only then would it be fair. It’s only equal if EVERYONE is equal.
It only seems natural that the people are the slowest coming on to the idea of change. If the issue is important enough to warrant the courts having to overturn the public opinion then I say they should do it. But this is an issue of many different aspects from all sides of religious and personal beliefs coming down harshly on a minority group. There is a stigma about people who are different, humans are programmed to avoid those that differ in some base way from the majority because, in nature at least, these differences could mean trouble such as disease or other issues. It’s hard for people to really get around looking at those who are of a minority, in the same way that African Americans were looked upon as an inferior race for a very long time – and in some places the feeling remains, unfortunately. Gays have rights and freedom just like straight people. These rights and freedoms are what the United States was originally built to protect, and now the people are striking down these rights simply because they are too short-sighted to accept those of a different sexual preference. So, in short, if it takes the courts overruling this vote to open a few eyes to the inequality here, then so be it.
I live in CA and agree with SladetheGreyFox, it should have NEVER been on the ballot. It’s discrimination, plain and simple.
The legal institution of marriage is not a basic human right. Nor is it an instrument of discrimination. I just can’t see a group that is more educated and more affluent than the greater population as an oppressed minority.
The solution is simple; beef up civil unions so that they are effectively identical in function to traditional marriage and stop whining about it.
Obviously the California majority isn’t as liberal as this election led us to believe. Let the states work it out amongst themselves.
The will of the people of California cannot outweigh what the Constitution of the United States says. So if the majority wants to do something that is unconstitutional (and in my opinion, here they have!), the Courts are there to protect the minority.
I hope they undo it. I think everyone has the right to marry anyone they want regardless of race or sex.
@BebstersBlog2 -
I believe the bible attributes unto Christ the phrase: Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s.
Meaning? Leave your Christianity out of worldly things… Like secular law.
Now, if only all of Christiandom followed the good book as well as they thought they did. If the Mormon church hadn’t placed such LARGE money into the Prop 8 advert. it NEVER would have passed.
That’s scary. It was put up for a vote, and the people were all given the chance to have their say. I mean, should someone decide McCain would be the better choice and put him in office despite the election results? It wasn’t a poll, it was a vote. We’re only pretending to be a democratic nation if a vote can be overturned when the results don’t go a certain way.
@NightCometh -
I didn’t realize a 4 Post Bed had reached the level of personhood.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - Ok. Explain why it should be.
@EarthsAzureLight - My beef is not for or against Homosexuality here…my beef is the democratic process. The people of California voted…my problem is the Government attempting to overwright a democratic process.
@Evowookiee - That is part of the governments job. Sometimes the will of the majority is wrong, and its the governments job to protect the minority’s rights.
i’m not sure i’d feel comfortable with that being allowed…
as voters, we’re supposed to have a say…
i’m not necessarily agreeing with prop 8..i just don’t think i’m in support of overturning the public’s vote.
@EarthsAzureLight - nowhere in the bill of rights, the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the other Amendments to the U.S. constitution, or the Constitution for the State Of California, is there the “right to marry” marriage is mentioned, in 1 or more of those documents, but marriage is never refered to as a “right” in any of those. If it is not a right, then it can be taken away or given to whoever we the people, or the government chooses to give it to or take it away from. The people of the state of California has choosen to define it as between a man and a wife.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - This is where you are wrong. In the constitution it does say “all people are created equal.” and thus if you give rights to some, you have to give it to all.
@Legendairy - Exactly! This is the 2nd time the votes have voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage . ENOUGH
@EarthsAzureLight - While I would agree with you that the Government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens…it is to do so recognizing the Constitution, and the division of power setup within. We could argue common examples, both of the humanization of blacks and the right of women to vote…both of which, by the way, required a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the Legislative branch and uphheld by the Judicial branch. For the Judicial branch to overturn a democratic vote, and MAKE policy is a gross over usage of powers granted by the Constitution.
The courts should not be MAKING policy; and there is no solid justification under the Constitution to overturn this vote.
@EarthsAzureLight - yes, you have to give rights to all. but as I explained. marriage is not a right, so you don’t have to give it to all.
@frequentlyenamored - it’s not about bigotry
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - Call it what you want, but if it’s legal for some, it has to be legal for all.
absolutely. not.
i know lots of people think prop 8 is unfair, and that’s fine with me. i happen to support prop 8. the issue with this really isn’t about the prop, it’s about the fact that if you overturn the prop, it won’t be fair.
california voted! it was a completely fair race. there was no cheating or anything. the people voted, and they voted to abolish gay marriage. this is a free, democratic country. if you just overturn the prop, it won’t be fair anymore. there was no foul play, so there is absolutely no reason to overturn the prop. i know if prop 8 didn’t pass, i wouldn’t be complaining. because it was a fair vote, and it IS a free country because the people voted.
yes!
@NightCometh - except only a bed isn’t a person
@broncomom - Of course it is. Civil rights should not be determined by a majority vote.
@EarthsAzureLight - we can say that about almost anything. it is legal for those over 18 to vote so we have to make it legal for those under 18
it is legal for those of a certain age to get married so we have to make it legal for all ages to get married
it is legal for those over 15.5 to get a license to drive in california so we have to make it legal for 4 year olds to drive?
it is legal for some to shoot people in self defense, so we need to make it legal to shoot everyone.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. if not, then there can bo no law at all. Laws are designed to tell some people that they can’t do something. Until you ca show me a law document that says “marriage is a right” then I am right in believeing that it is not and is something that can be taken away or given at whim.
@SimplyPynki - Nope, but that wasn’t the issue.
If you’d like, I should be able to marry my brother. Or my sister. That’s equality.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - That’s a strawman argument.
The 2nd Amendment grants rights to bear arms, but we don’t let children buy weapons.
Voting is an ability / maturity issue. Mental capacity is an issue.
Marriage age is a state issue, and varies from state to state. This has no influence on what people can get married, only when. This is a difference.
Once again Driving is an ability issue. All people can drive, just once capacity is reached.
The shooting people was a retarded comment.
All of the above are different from barring certain people from getting married
Well. I don’t know…But Yesterday, there was a huge protest at the Capital building in Sacramento, CA. I didn’t go because it looked like it was going to rain and I didn’t want to walk to the Lightrail station to go downtown.
@EarthsAzureLight - that is correct the 2nd amendment does give us the right to bear arms. now, give me the document that gives us the right to be married?
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - You completely missed the point. You were saying that if something is granted as a right, it cannot be taken away. But it can be and should because of ability and competancy!
Don’t change the subject because you lost the argument. The point is that because something is explicitly spelled out in the constitution does not grant it to all people regardless of ability, circumstance, etc. What you cannot do however is give a right/priviledge to people and discriminate because you don’t like their ideals.
I don’t need to give you an implicit right, all I need to give you is “All people are created equal”
Yes in this case!
@EarthsAzureLight - fine, if all people are created equal then either 4 year olds can drive. or they are not people.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - They can drive. When they have the ability to do so!
I agree. and people can get married when they have the ability to.
I seriously don’t care. I personally think that everyone should have the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, if they choose, but if married couples (men married to women) choose to protect the sanctity of marriage, I see where they are coming from. It’s like calling FallOutBoy and Green Day punk rock. It soils and makes filthy something originally very holy. To Christians, sodomy and homosexuality are unholy. Like to the extreme. And marriage, is like a holy covenant. So to let people who do things that are considered by the BIble to be the highest unholy thing you could do with your body, have something as holy as marriage, soils the entire institution of marriage.
Not saying that’s what I truly believe, but I can see where people who supported Prop 8 are coming from. Also, if the majority of votes voted no gay marriage, that should stick. Just as if the majority had voted to abolish the death penalty. If that were the case, people wouldn’t be screaming “No, BRING BACK OUR DEATH!!!”
Upholding the reputation of California as being a free-for-all shouldn’t take precedence over democracy at work.
They shouldn’t make a habit of it. But in this case they should.
Watch something weird happen.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - They do have the ability to. It’s still illegal.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - You’re not too smart are you? You’re trying to make an argument that gay people aren’t competant enough to get married. Are you sure that’s the argument you want to make?
what’s the point of voting on something if the court and the losers are gonna be poor sports and try to have their way anyway?
I hope so, and I hope other states follow suit.
if they really do overturn it, this would discourage people from voting. what’s the point? it’s already hard enough to encourage people to vote and convince them that their vote does make a difference. If they overturn it, it’s practically spitting in the people’s faces saying their vote does not matter and the system can do whatever the hell they want ~.~
@SimplyPynki - That was talking about taxes and has absolutely nothing to do with morality in laws. The passage also says to render to God what is God’s, something that is clearly not being done.
I’m just saying to take a look at history. The dark ages came about when God’s law was forsaken and America was founded on godly principles – allowing homosexual marriage is one step in undermining the principles which make America so great.
no.
I believe that there was an immense amount of dirty campaigning around this issue. Churches took a stance and used their tax-exempt status to further that stance.
I don’t think the courts should overturn the will of the people, but I do think that this whole issue should have been better controlled and certain groups should have not been allowed to campaign.
If the government doesn’t charge you taxes, you cannot take a political side on this issue.
When it discriminates and infringes on other people’s lives… yeah.
I think that would be a BAD way of dealing with this issue. Forcing it upon the people is not the way to deal with this specific issue. This is not the same thing as slavery or the Civil Rights legislation. Some people are going to disagree with me, but that is my view. I think this issue needs to be discussed rationally so that both sides concerns are addressed.
No.
Why even have initiative ballots through which the people voice their opinions if the courts are going to COMPLETELY ignore them? TWICE?
If it happens then gg Yes on 8 campaign, you just wasted all that money!
@ChrisRusso - That’s a pretty cold stance to take. So, under your understanding of “rights” the government can do away with marriage before the law at its discretion? I won’t even argue with that. What the State giveth, the State taketh away–so says ChrisRusso.
But if you are arguing under the premise that marriage is a “liberty”–which is a very contentious stance–giving liberties to one group (heterosexuals) which are not given to another group (homosexuals) is in violation of the 14th amendment. The “due process of law” clause might happen to include a state referendum (there’s little precedent to recognize that) but that can be extended to the right of the supreme court to overturn said referendum due to its failure to uphold the constitution. No matter which way you go about it, right or liberty, you still have to overturn prop 8.
I’d even be willing to make the argument that a marriage license can be understood as property. By disallowing homosexuals the right to that license by virtue of their sexuality, you are probably violating some kind of segregation law (kinda like not selling a house b/c of race). No matter what this is a civil “rights” issue. No matter how you slice it.
I was going to say no because the people voted, but it is a matter of equality. I’m just not sure what to think on this one.
This is a never ending cycle. Californians don’t allow LBGT to get married, then we do, then we don’t. Now we’re thinking about letting them marry again.
It’s been a never ending cycle. And I hope it stops with gays being allowed to marry.
well, its unfortunate that the california voters said yes to prop 8.
but, however, i don’t think that the courts should be able to undo it.
power of the people. not power of the courts.
do you want every decision to be able to go to court? no.
its unfortunate, but we can’t make any exceptions, i think.
[lol. this doesn't make any sense at all. feel free to ignore this.]
will of the people? what about the fucking RIGHTS of the homosexual community? these kinds of things shouldn’t even be up for vote, period. the whole thing is so ridiculous, i’m glad people are full of rage and doing something to change the situation.
Well the people who voted for it were voting based on religious preference, which we all know is a ridiculous fairy tale, so HELL YEAH OVERTURN IT!!!
The will of the people, are you kidding?
The advertising in favor of Prop 8 was all paid for by the Church of Latter Day Saints, and I’m sorry, but it’s fucking retarded for MORMONS of all people to be trying to influence ANY laws over the “sanctity of marriage”. Besides that, they are in UTAH, and ought not even be affecting laws in other states in the first place.
Ridiculous that people who find polygamy acceptable are trying to protect the “sanctity of marriage”.
I guess all those people protesting prop 8, I guess their will is irrelevant.
It all depends on infringement of rights. If people had their way back in the sixties, I wouldn’t be legally marrying my white fiance
I think we should nuke the middle east, put abortionists to death and make homosexuality a crime.
LETS HAVE A VOTE!
You want that vote?
what was the point of prop 8 in the first place then?
In strictly legal terms, no, the courts cannot overturn Prop 8. California Proposition 8 amended the state constitution. The courts simply cannot declare the constitution to be unconstitutional. The only way to overturn this decision is with another vote.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake -
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is your proof
Should it be over turned… No… They voted, so give it to them. If it was really that much of a problem perhaps there should be more positive campaigning as agressively as the religious freaks (not going to point fingers at any one religious group even if I want to) that started putting advertisments up telling people that homosexuals are all child molesters. Everyone should have homosexual friends to see what they go through. People fear what they don’t know. Obviously they are afraid, or brainwashed… Regardless they voted and give them what they want. I expect civil unions to be on the next ballots there.
yes.
When will discrimination end?
When 3 wolves and 1 lamb hold a vote on whats for dinner, do you think the vote could be fair.
Prop 8 has no business being something for a mob to vote on.
Slavery, segregation, non-suffrage. All of these issues imposed legal inequality, and it was never right, despite the masses and the law saying it was.
@EarthsAzureLight - It should be at the discretion of the institution granting the marriage, depending on whether granting the marriage is consistent with the goals of that institution.
@super_cruz - I’m tiring of having people jump to conclusions based on my words. How many times do I have to say that I’m not a fan of Prop 8?
See my above response to E.A.L.–whether one receives a marriage or not should depend on whether one finds an marriage-granting institution whose goals are compatible with granting one’s marriage. Had anyone read my recent blog on the subject they would know that I do not believe the government’s goals incompatible with granting homosexual marriages, and the government is one marriage-granting institution.
Nevertheless, one receives a marriage at the discretion of whatever institution one applies to. Marriage is something that is granted. Inalienable rights are not granted, they are intrinsic in being human, and thus marriage is not a right.
And even if a marriage license is property, Right To Property =/= Right To A Marriage License. Ferraris are property. I have Right To Property. But I do not have Right To A Ferrari. (Pity, that.)
We can’t forget that sometimes, it takes the courts to abolish something like segregation. Just because majority votes for something doesn’t make it right.
you know, that’s fucking gay.
we voted, prop 8 passed.
period.
Arnilod walked around shanghai asking them to stop copying DVDS and CDS etc. Apparently this had some effect. The major famous market in Shanghai that sold copies was dismantled after his visit mukch to Starbuck’s dismay having a coffee shop across from it.
If this news is old or new stuff has developped please update me.
Opinions do not matter when it comes to equal rights. No one can decide whether or not a person has the right to this or that unless it is a logical safety issue (i.e. prisoners, enemy combatants) and even those have the basic rights to life. In most of our opinions those certain types of people should be drowned after efficiently burned, but it won’t happen because it goes against our foundations.
So why should we allow a people, that have done nothing to seriously harm the rest of us, be persecuted because certain people don’t agree with their lifestyles.
@ChrisRusso - We are talking about the legal contract of marriage, not the religious ceremony.
@greenbird321 - Responding to your blog-arguments:
the gay-rights movement is NOTHING like the black civil rights movement. and do not EVEN dare to insult me(as a black person) in such a way.
The two movements are relevantly similar. In TheologianCafe, Jim Crow laws were brought up as an example where legislation of the majority (in this case, the racial majority) limited the rights of the minority (blacks and other ethnic groups).
when you’re black, there’s no arguement–you’re born black.not so for homosexuality. it IS a choice. no matter how much you want to deny it….
1.) There is perfect anology between the inter-racial marriage laws of the deep south of the early 20th century and that of bans on same-sex marriage.
Marriage partners is a matter of choice. There is a measure of choice in a white man loving a black woman. Or an Asian man loving a white woman.
2.) Just because there is choice in the matter doesn’t mean that the government should be agiven a blank check to discriminate
We choose our religions, yet, people can’t be freely discriminated against just because of the choice of their religion.
Yes, a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. Yet, it is like religion in that people strongly self-identify and cross-identify by their sexual orientation. Catholics don’t jump between Christianity and Buddhism by the days of thee week. And similarily, a gay person just doesn’t turn straight overnight.
you’re just dancing around the fact that it IS a lifestyle choice.
Irrelevent. (See above)
so don’t even try to compare this to the original, TRUE civil-rights movement.
There have been many injustices and many civil rights momement in the history of the United States. In the inception of the United States, there was a strong movement in the seperation of church and state. There were the movement for the right of women to vote.
Yes– the racial civil right momvent of the 1960′s is a great accomplishment, but this doesn’t mean we can’t further proceed with wider equality.
yes, if the voters are stupid
Yes.
I live in SF, and I am constantly seeing/hearing about complaints and protests.
They need to do this!
@EarthsAzureLight - As am I.
@ChrisRusso - In essence your ideas make sense. Marriage may not be a right born to us, but if the only reason a person is not allowed to marry is because of his lifestyle… it should, in all legality be illegal. The government has granted all citizens the right to prosper thereby giving them a shot in the dark of getting that Ferrari. If we should be truly equal, which is a born right, give homosexuals the right to find a Ferrari…whether or not it happens is up to fate and them, not us.
@misuriver - From the standpoint of government as one (of many) marriage-granting institutions, I agree. The government’s purpose is to protect its citizens and the rights of its citizens. Marriage may not be a right, but if granting a marriage does not infringe on the rights of American citizens then there is no legal reason why the government should withhold it. (In fact, right-infringement should be the only reason why the government should withhold a marriage from anyone, and the only instances of it I can think of would be a nonconsenting marriage or a marriage with a minor who cannot give consent.)
When it is necessary and proper to do so, like when they overturned the people’s vote to segregate schools and ban interracial marriage. The judiciary is supposed to interpret the laws in order to keep them in line with the Constitution. Since Prop 22 contradicted California’s Constitution, they overturned it. The people who call it tyranny are ill-informed.
the courts should not overturn the will of the voters (even though i disagree with the outcome of that vote). the courts overturning the will the voters completely undermines democracy.. unless it can be proven to the courts that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. and unfortunately, i don’t think proving that it’s unconstitutional is that easy. it might seem like a slam dunk, but nothing in court is ever really straightforward.
Doesn’t the court system do that already anyways?
If the court is going to overturn the people’s vote, why let the people vote in the first place? Sounds pretty undemocratic to me, no matter what side you’re on.
interesting. Isn’t that what happened with Prop 22? The courts overturned our vote on that, too…so here we are again. We vote, but it doesn’t matter…
Now, I’m not saying I’m for or against Prop 8…my feeling on this matter strictly has to do with the fact that I’m afraid our law-making system is flawed if the peoples’ vote bears no meaning in the system.
I want to say yes…
@super_cruz - I understand what you’re trying to say here. But the Californian government put the decision to their citizens, so they should uphold such a decision. If they originally thought that the courts would make a better decision, then it should have been dealt with by the courts.
@huginn - Then the government has made a terrible mistake in the beginning. But what is done is done, you can’t simply overturn things like that. Unless Californians actually stand up against the decision, and not just the people in other states.
@ChrisRusso - Then you’re saying the government should be able to choose who it allows to marry with no regard to equality?
YES!!!! I hope so!!!
Shouldn’t the governor represent the will of the people, rather than tell them they are wrong?
We shouldn’t be allowed to vote on a matter of Civil Rights. There will always be one group of people who feel superior to another. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote how those they feel are inferior should live their lives. If we were supposed to vote on African-American civil rights, I’d bet we’d still have slavery.
Why did it go to the vote in the first place if it came down the courts?
I really appreciate Arnold, a Republican being for gay rights. I wish more from his party would realize its not the end of christianity to have equal rights for everyone.
Unfortunately, this was not necessarily the “will of the voters”. Much money poured in from around the country, particularly from Mormon Churches in Utah, and Catholic Churches all over. That money was spent on ads that seriously misled the average uninformed voter, they used scare tactics and terrorism to push their agenda. Catholic Priests were refusing communion to people who would have voted no on 8-this is a fact, it happened at a friend’s church.
That being said, if the “will of the people” was to truly “protect marriage” and outlaw divorce how many people would be putting up a fight?
Add to that this is supposed to become a constitutional ammendment…suppressing the civil rights of taxpaying citizens, just like when interracial unions were against the law. Denying the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
When she came into work on Wednesday, the 5th, a lesbian friend said “I’ll be damned, chickens have more rights than I do.” (prop 2 passed)
Quite sad really, I hope it does get overturned.
Fuck. That’s such a slippery slope, but goddammit that law should have never passed so… Just this once.
Do people really have the right to vote and decide the fate and rights of other citizens? Is it OK that one election dictates the lives of homosexuals in California for years to come? Personally, I think no. Which is why I’m glad there’s a balance of power in our democracy and the Supreme Court also gets a say. And if they’re as American as I hope they are, they will vote in no other way than to overturn this vote and allow gays to have legal marriages across the states. It’s against our Constitution to deny the rights of our equal citizens.
Besides, the votes may be swayed because there is talk that the proponents for voting YES on Prop 8 convinced the CA citizens that if they allowed gay marriage they would also be allowing their 5 year old children to be taught about gay marriage in public school systems. This was not what the vote was about at all, so people may have voted a way they wouldn’t have otherwise.
UNBELIEVABLE! Arnold is an uneducated moron for this. How pathetic that people will celebrate the democratic voter system when it works to help them, but when the majority of the people do their duty and vote and it’s not what a select few want then the entire system is reworded and another frantic appeal is demanded…the same people that celebrate democracy can’t live with it’s decisions…unbelievable. Unjust. Un-American. Selfish. Moronic. GROW UP! It’s a mockery to democracy to question the ultimate authority of the people. What?! Does ARNOLD have some second agenda here? Does he intend on running California as he sees fit and forget the will of the people?
It’s the whole purpose of putting the vote to the people, so stupid morons like Arnold can’t rule over people and toss their opinion to the side. When a government becomes corrupt such as this, it’s the DUTY of the people to overthrow that government. No. NO. NOOOOO. This is incredible and fantastic. We are living in very scandalous and very terrifying times my friends. We’ll be no more than ants serving a queen. Self righteous bigots. Arnold should be sent back to Austria or put back in a Hollywood trailer.
I’m sick at this. The issue doesn’t even matter. If I were gay it still would piss me off that democracy is broken. I’d rather live in a FREE NATION…and have the voices of the people DEFENDED than gain all my self serving causes.
Courts can only decide cases brought to them. They can’t decide whether something is constitutional if it doesn’t exist yet. The main purpose of the supreme court is to resolve issues where either a law or ammendement is unclear or conflicts with the constitution. Our system was set up with checks and balances so that the rights of the few aren’t trampled on by the will of the majority. I hope that they decide to hear this case. There is no legal reason to deny a right for one group only. By striking this proposition down, they will fulfill their most important duty and restore my faith in our democracy.
I do not approve of prop 8 but i do not agree with Arnold Schwarzeneger’s comment. I mean, the people have voted and now you are going to just change it? What the hell? This is a mockery of democracy! The people might as well not have voted in the first place!
@Legendairy - THANK YOU!
yes.
“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.”
the rights of a minority should never be left up to majority opinion.
prop 8 should have never even been on the ballot.
No! That’s not okay, that’s taking the peoples’ voices away from them! Voting is a right and whether everyone likes it or not the outcome should be final until the next time around. Now I’m not a supporter of Prop 8 nor am I against it (I really don’t care), but undoing the vote of the majority because it’s ‘unfair’ to some and a bunch of people are throwing tantrums in the street is…well it’s ludicrous. It pisses me off to think if something I voted for as a majority was turned over because some people didn’t like it….I’d feel robbed and it would basically say to me, “You’re vote doesn’t matter…Sorry”. No way, and I’m sure if Prop 8 had turned out the other way and the other side protested and Arnold made that same comment, it’d be the same story.
@misuriver - Actually it is not proof.
privileges or immunities is defined as “In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the Supreme Court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include “protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty … the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.”
Nothing is said about marriage. the Equal Protection clause mentioned in the exact same section would then be defined as giving the above privileges to all people.
Marriage is still not mentioned as right. therefore it is not proof of mariage being a right.
You know I never was before, but I kind of want to see democracy at work with Prop 8. I don’t have a problem with gays or lesbians at all. Matter fact I think it would be pretty fun to have either one as a close friend. As a not very perfect Christian and a very blunt and unorthodox one you know what I say? When people say it’s morally wrong, that’s NOT the point in this case at all. Let’s stop off to the side and agree “Yes the forefathers of this country were for the most part of Christian or some sort of other derived affiliation”. Nonetheless they had in mind the rights and equality for the people. They are United States citizens too you know and for the sake of not being hypocritical (like most Christians but that’s another story), they SHOULD be allowed to do whatever the hell they want. To put it bluntly :3. Personally I was rather surprised with the turnout of Prop 8 considering the majority of California is liberal. Makes you wonder what the courts have been getting away with all these years right?
Even in the smaller courts judges get away with EVERYTHING. Just recently my instructor told me how much the judges think they can get away with in court, even as little as a speeding ticket. It’s safe to say that they do these things all the time and they go unchecked? The judge was even as ignorant enough to get angry with him and pretty much blackmail him. Anyways, the will of the people speaks. It’s nice to know Obama speaks with the people and not for them right? I never liked him before but he’s done something to America that no one has done in awhile.
I don’t usually comment on your blog, because I think most of the time you are ridiculous, but this one is actually interesting.
Of course, I believe that the voting for Prop. 8 should have gone the other way. In fact I feel physically sick that it didn’t.
But I also would never EVER say yes to your question. You americans and us Brits live in democracys, something so many people around the world would love. (See the current situation with Mugabe in Zimbabwe as an example.) I would never want that jeopardised, even though the result of Prop. 8 was the wrong one (and showed that America still lacks the ability to separate church and state.)
Let the people vote again. But never ever take away the right to choose.
Not generally, but they are taking rights AWAY from people.
Many proponents of Prop. 8 claim they’re upholding traditional marriage between a man and a woman as sacred with Prop. 8. But then why do more than half of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce? If proponents of Prop. 8 believe marriage between man and woman is sacred, then shouldn’t more effort be placed on preserving this heterosexual social institution? Instead of trying so hard to prevent another demographic from partaking in the “joys” of the same sacred institution?
@EarthsAzureLight - I’m saying that any marriage-granting institution should be able to choose who it grants a marriage to based on that institution’s goals and purposes.
Specifically, the United State’s government’s goals and purposes (the protection of its citizens’ rights to Life Property and Estate) have no conflict with homosexual marriage. And therefore I believe that the government should grant its brand of marriage to homosexuals. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is a marriage-granting institution which must decide who it grants its marriages to based on its goals and purposes–that Marriage is not a right which the institution must provide.
The people of California should be the ones to make the decision to change it back, not the courts.The court is constitutionally supposed to judicate (to uphold) the will of the people.
The legislature branch turns the will of the people into law.
The executive branch enforces the law.
The judicial branch judges if the law has been kept or not (despite personal ideals about the law). (This is all in an ideal world of course)
This is our democracy as we know it. By removing the people’s will (as decided by a majority vote) we effectively remove the “self rule” that democracy is supposed to be. We no longer have a say in our government and it all becomes a farce.
Reread the comments of EilisAngelos, cutelvr21, wolfemother, not_me_77, niez_cho, etc.
In this case, I would love to see it overturned. Simply because I am so sad to see that Prop 8 passed. But in general, no. What would be the point of voting, of democracy, if we don’t respect how the people have voted?
Wouldn’t the courts doing something like that resemble a distant cousin to communism……..or something like that.
But otherwise I think it’s a good idea.
Yes because that decision sucks
“the will of the people”: there is more than one people in California, and among these peoples, there are multiple wills
If the will of the people was to kill all the animals in national parks because they interupted there pic nic’s DON’T YOU KNOW PETA would be all over that one.
Animals have more protestion than Gay couples right now! Think about it, in Arizona where I live if you don’t leave out enough water for your horses or dogs you can be fined and do jail time. That is the law…
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT OF HUMANS.
Oh yeah and we have a constitution that says we have the right to liberty AND THE pursuit of happiness. This is reverse discrimination, the righteous accuse the gay community of having an adgenda and the inturn have done just what the are pointing their fiinger at us about.
If I used my tax free money (churches) to influence a political situation, like the Morman church and the other churches did, then I’d be guilty of mixing church and state. They should investigate this whole situation. And what kills me is that the minorities that voted for this understand what discrimination is and know how harmful it has been for them in there fight to just be accepted for who they are. So no matter how you look at this outcome it is wrong for any group to take rights away from others.
I think it is time to start taxing the Churches if they use there freedom to abuse others freedoms. This is not over, and like it or not God loves US too.
How many times have they overturned this? What’s the point in voting if the government it just going to do what they want?
yeah, the people have spoken…. but based on some seriously right wing, homophobia biased (TEHY WILL TEACH YR KIDZ TO BE GAY WITH PROP 8!!1 OMGz!) media/advertising
i hope the courts overturn it as it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL (seperation of church and state anyone?)
if the will of the voters is unconstitutional, then certainly
That should never have been on the ballot, but people go out and get signatures and put whatever they want on the ballot, even if it isn’t legally sound.
The votes shouldn’t be disregarded, or voting will be seen as a bigger farce than it already is. Think of all the money spent by both sides of this non-issue about a word and not about human rights. Real issues like health care are ignored in favor of deceptive endeavors.
@niez_cho - Then the government has made a terrible mistake in the beginning. But what is done is done, you can’t simply overturn things like that. Unless Californians actually stand up against the decision, and not just the people in other states.
State propositions ane legislations could be overturned if they conflict larger planks of the state or federal constitution.
Though passed and supported by the people, Jim Crow laws of the deep South were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 60′s.
Now that’s a maverick!
I find gay marriage to be creepy & disturbing, but it’s also none of my business. Marriage is essentially just a contract. The govt’s job is to enforce contracts. No one has the right to decide who may or may not voluntarily enter into a contract.
@ChrisRusso - You can’t have a government select people based on criteria on which it is illegal to discriminate on.
This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say those who PREACH tolerance are the MOST INTOLERANT of all. They can’t TOLERATE the will of the people, so they bring in the courts to FORCE their opinions on the masses, then have the NEVER to call them “intolerant.” THAT IS INTOLERANCE AT IT’S WORST. These people make me sick who use the courts to force their beliefs onto others, then have the audacity to say we’re intolerant. Yeah right! My rear end!
@EarthsAzureLight - Uh… what?
@sammjane - Precisely! We no longer have a voice in this country. The left decides for us what we are to think, to feel, to believe, then they have the audacity to take THEIR opinions to the courts and force the rest of the world to live with it.
@Ulysses31 - No, sir. That is overturning democracy.
@woodrowwilson - Dumb
@Color_me_Karma - Amen!
@persevere88 - Why should the voters get to vote again? So they can introduce fraud and steal the decision, as they just did in the presidential election? The votes have been counted. Let it alone. Democracy should rule!
@EarthsAzureLight - ???
Are you reading my responses? The criteria by which the government would select would be: “Would this marriage infringe on anyone’s Right to Life?” “Would this marriage infringe on anyone’s Right To Liberty?” “Would this marriage infringe on anyone’s Right To Own Property?” (Homosexual marriage does none of these.)
If those criteria are discriminatory, then you and I are operating under different definitions of the word.
@ChrisRusso - Ok. Let’s put it another way.
The government also cannot just fire any employee because they are gay. The governments only obligation aren’t to give fundamental rights in the constitution. There are other laws and years of legal prescedent to follow. In this case, the government cannot sponsor programs or follow policies that are discriminatory.
Does that make sense?
Basically you are saying the government is allowed to do anything it wants as long as its constitutional. This is FALSE. There are other laws besides the US Constitution.
Could it be that the people who agree with equal rights (yet weren’t passionate or motivated enough) are the ones who didn’t go out of their way to vote NO on Prop 8, so therefore the results of this proposition are not fully understood by the public…? … The ones who are most passionate about gay rights, AND are willing to go out of their way to VOTE NO.. or YES… are the ones who determined this outcome…
How many people who agree with equal rights YET did NOT out of their way to vote NO on this issue?
How many people who agree with equal rights AND were passionate enough to go out of their way to vote No on this issue?
How many people who DISAGREED with this equal rights issues went out of their way to vote YES on this issue?
Perhaps, there were MORE people who DISAGREED with this issues went out of their way to vote YES than people who believe in gay rights but DID NOT go out of their way to vote. (think of all the groups of people who are against gay rights, like certain religious groups, etc. Aren’t they the ones more passionate about voting Yes on Prop 8 than the ones who are not as passionate?? … And think about what motivates and drives a person to take action… )
I think we should look at all angles before we jump to conclusions and make assumptions on WHY the outcome of Prop 8 was such a shock. (Yes it was a shock to me too, but one of my good friends brought up this incredible important point that we should all think about… and maybe should take a lesson from…)
So, I guess my question is, how many of YOU actually went out of your way to vote NO on prop 8?
No! The people voted for the amendment. Period. The courts already went against the majority when they pulled that stunt allowing it to begin with.
That’s irrelevant. The courts are there to interpret the law, not make the law. The courts were able to interpret a lesser law by the constitution before, that’s why the courts mattered on this issue before. But since this is meant to be the popular vote to amend the constitution itself, this is different. No matter how unfortunate the circumstances, the courts cannot overrule the constitution, only judge by it. It’s called checks and balances, people. If the people want to change their mind, they are always able to do that. But to use the courts to legislate undermines our system of government to the point that we wonder why we bother having a system at all.
We the PEOPLE have spoken. that was the whole point of founding our nation as we did. the courts (and the bank) according to our founding fathers were to be kept small and severely held in check. they understood all too well the tyranny of the courts and wanted no such thing in our nation.
@Legendairy -
TOTALLY AGREED HERE!
@elgaberino -
Well said, but there are people who try to skew the laws in a way so as to interpret differently…otherwise attorneys wouldn’t have a job.
I don’t think they should.
Even though it may be disagreeable that Prop 8 passed, it’s obvious that it’s MORE disagreeable if the court overturns it considering the proposition passed.
…. someone fill me in here. The biggest reason the bill passed was because of UNTRUE statments made my the right wing republicans about what prop 8 would do…
how does this make the vote valid?
If in highschool, you are taught only one side of a subject, but tested on BOTH SIDES, would you bitch and moan about the test being unfair? YEAH, because you would be aware of it being unfair. Many people arent aware that most of their advertising (focusing on childhood education of homosexuality was not only narroq sighted but biased…)
I hope this is over turned, and QUICK. It’s taking advantage of the easily swayable “imdecideds” who don’t bother to research their votes, who vote off commercials.
I remember when he went to my school.two times..and when he got elected governor…kinda funny
@BrainTease - Vote again at the next election, or the next time these things happen. I don’t know, I’m not American and I don’t know how your system works. I was just throwing the suggestion out there as a compromise, as everyone knows this was a stupid result, and, like I said in my last post, just shows America still can’t serparate church and state
Thanks for replying though!
In this case, yes, since it was already legalized.
they damn well better, in this case at least. how is denying gays rights any dfferent from denying any other minority rights? they’d NEVER put up an issue for vote if it concerned the right of Asians or blacks or Latinos to marry now would they? it shouldn’t even be an issue to begin with.
@CallMeQuell - i think you hit the nail right on the head- do we leave sex and racial discrimination up to the state government? or do we in fact have laws guaranteeing the same rights fo all americans, regardless of sex, color, or national origin? the only real question is to include sexual orientation to this list.
Considering that there wasn’t a huge majority of votes in favor versus the number not in favor, yes.
Then again, I’m biased because I voted no and I want to see my will work out.
@pch_driver - Right. The people who make the law are the electorate (the people) and the legislature. The people who interpret it (and sometimes skew it) are the executive (the governor, in this case) and the judicial (judges). The skewing comes in when there are activist judges and lawyers trying to circumvent the legislative process, which is what Schwarzenegger is openly advocating right now. Say what you will about Prop 8, it is ESSENTIAL that the people of America hold their Executive and Judicial branches accountable to not legislate. The more the checks and balances erode, the more our freedoms erode. Period. Why do you think it was possible for the executive branch to become so intrusive into private citizens’ business after 9/11? The Bush administration made the rules, interpreted their constitutionality for themselves, and enforced (executed) the rules themselves. Legislative, Judicial and Executive, all in one branch. It was good that congress and others came in and stopped the Exec from continuing that; unless the branches check each other properly, the government becomes monarchical, oligarchical, or even dictatorial.
From a legal perspective, the California Supreme Court based its decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the California Constitution. The California Constitution allows amendment by initiative (Article 18,
Sections 3-4) and now recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman (Proposition 8). The only legal basis for overturning the will of the voters would be under the U.S. Constitution, which would make the decision subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court should therefore be more cautious in interpreting the U.S. Constitution than the California Constitution. Perhaps this caution will tip the 4-3 split that decided In re Marriage Cases in the other direction.
From a Christian theological perspective, same-sex marriage is indefensible. I blogged a little about the issue here: The Bible and politics.
From a sociological perspective, same-sex marriage is destructive:
Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad
For the sake of the childrenThe Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage
What same-sex marriage is really about.
@CallMeQuell - Yes, my friend. It is bad. You should hope that the people will reverse their vote, or that the Amendment won’t be ratified. But you should never hope that the Executive and the Judicial team up to overrule the legislation of the popular or representative vote. That is what we call exchanging our freedom for a sense of trust in our government. All nations do immoral or questionable things; the reason ours is better is because it is freer, because our government is limited by itself and by its people. That is the only reason we have hope of progress.
@elgaberino -
totally agreed about checks and balance. I believe that the people have spoken with their vote and should be respected if not, we will vote elected officials out…I guess the governator showed us that all too well.
absolutely. gays should be able to get married whenever and wherever they want.
@EarthsAzureLight - Sure there are other laws that the government has to follow other than the constitution. No the government can’t do whatever it wants as long as it’s constitutional (though the Constitution outlines what the role of government is supposed to be). But I don’t see how either of those apply.
I say that the government should grant marriage insofar as those marriages agree with its purposes. Its purposes are non-discriminatory. Thus the government should grant marriage in a non-discriminatory manner. This includes granting to homosexuals, to polygamists, etc. (but not to forced marriages or marriages to infants).
You and I agree on the conclusion of this matter even though we’re coming at it from different angles. I don’t see what the problem is.
hey i hope they keep same sex marriage banned i mean marriage is meant for a man and a woman
When it comes to prop 8, yes, yes, and yes.
@elgaberino - Yeah…I know…
Still I’m one to tend towards intellectual oligarchy…heh.
@ChrisRusso - My issue was with this statement: “It should be at the discretion of the institution granting the marriage, depending on whether granting the marriage is consistent with the goals of that institution.”
In the case of the government, it has no stock in marriage as its an exclusive institution that has no effect on individuals outside of the marriage. You made it sound like the government should have the right to refuse to give marriage based on arbitrary criteria. If that’s not what you meant, apologies, but it seemed like this was your view point.
I am not gay, but I think men and men along with women and women should have the right to get married. If they found that one person that is special to them, why would they have to go to Canada or a different state to get married? It is their life. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs. Why control their life cause you don’t like the fact of men being with men? I’m only 15, but I know happiness is hard to come by, and love is twice as hard to find. If its what makes them happy, the court shouldn’t have taken the right away from them in such a short time that the opportunity was given to them.
Its love. Love.
As an American, I have the right to say and think that Homosexuality should not be looked down upon. I agree, it is, “different,” but we need different people. If everyone was the same, where would we be? We’d look the same, a mother would have the same amount of kids in her lifetime as everyone else. We would not look like “ourselves.” We’d all be the same, and thats not what life is about. Everyone has a special part of them that contributes to the world. Homosexuals have the same feeling you have toward your significant other. No matter the sex, love is just love. Age doesn’t matter. Race doesn’t matter. Gener shouldn’t matter either.
When that “will” is to take away someone’s rights? You bet your padded bra I do…
sure…why not. i’m gay myself and this issue hits me on so many different levels.
@EarthsAzureLight - Perhaps “discretion” was the wrong word–it was not my intention to indicate that such a decision should be arbitrary. Such a decision should flow out of the institution’s purposes. In the case of a marriage-granting institution like the American government, there would only be those caveats that I already mentioned, and homosexual marriage should not be an issue. In the case of a marriage-granting institution like a church or temple, it may or may not be an issue depending on how that institution percieves its goals and purposes. (I was trying to make a statement that would cover not just government but all such institutions.)
what i don’t understand is that since proposition 8 was passed, does that mean that all the couples’ marriages were annulled?
@OnE_TeXAs_WoNdEr - They’re in limbo.
I dont’ think anyone has a clear idea how things will resolved.
No…people have been wanting to be heard and wanted their votes to count.If the court takes over then that means that whatever us people vote for doesn’t matter.The goverment is on their way of taking over anyways cause that is what our president wants.So,I guess this is the start….
Slavery was once “the will of the people”. So was segregation. Sometimes unjust laws need to be overturned, even if the majority likes them…
not in favor of prop 8 – even less in favor of government overturning the vote of the people. sigh.
I know I’m late to this, but figured I’d add my 2 cents. I’ve already expressed my sentiments on my own blog (link). I think it should be overturned, and will be. It’s unconstitutional. It’s simply unjust. As one person put it, “equality has been shit on” by the majority Christian voters. Sure, it was a majority vote, we have the democratic right to do that, but just like the supreme court is in place to check the legislation, they, too, have to check the public legislation, which is what this proposition process is. I think it should have been checked before even getting to voters, though, because now having it passed is like having a ref make a call in the game, and then rescind it. I’m glad arnold is for that. I’m glad Obama offered Arnold a seat in the cabinet, but he declined the offer.
@rachelserine - why is that a problem? Would you have a problem if the supreme court did its job (checks and balances) of overturning things passed by the legislator? All this is in california is a public legislation. It doesn’t mean what the people vote is somehow supreme and untouchable by government. It needs to be checked. It also spits on minority rights. I suggest reading the federalist papers on these matters since that is one of the fundamental reasons for the kind of government we have–to protect minority rights. No majority is justified in treating any sect of society unjustly or unequal under the law because that faction assents to it. The majority can be tyrannical over the minority, and this is precisely what is happening. The majority Christians just changed the legal landscape of civil unions by changing who is allowed to enter into such agreements. That’s called discrimination. Do you honestly find it worse for people to discriminate under the law than to have the government prevent discrimination?
Yes.
@Legendairy - True—but even you can’t forget the old anthem “A foolish opinion shared by thousands is still a foolish opinion.”
Unfortunately, the majority can be wrong. I believe it’s so funny, to live in a society that hails and glorifies those of above-average intelligences only to turn around and decide everything on a majority vote.
∞
No, because what the people vote for, they should get. That’s the whole point of voting. If the gov didn’t want input, he shouldn’t've called for a vote, just tried to make it into a law.
Absolutely not. And I’m not just saying this cuz I favor Prop 8. I simply believe that that will of the people must be considered in a democratic society.
I think that they should have a revote.
Give the gays a chance, but make sure its voted on.
If 52% of the voters are assholes they should.
they should not ever overturn the vote of the majority unless what was won by the majority denies others of their civil liberties. gays should be able to marry and the only people that have to detest against that are the people who are not gay. not all but some which are religious, narrow minded ass holes who will never understand or make an attempt to walk in the shoes of those who are homosexual.
Regardless of what I personally believe on this dilemma, if that is what the majority of the people want, that is what the people get, whether its a bad idea or good in this country. You don’t see George Bush trying to get the supreme court to overturn the presidential election just because McCain didn’t win and because roughly 48% of the country wanted him to be president, do you? I don’t get it. If 52% of people voted for “change” in America, the other 48% of Americans just deal with it and go from there. But in this situation, that 48% is appealing to a higher power to pretty much reject the majority decision. Does anyone see something inherently wrong with that? This is America, land where the people make the decisions. If the government gets into a trend of being able to overturn the majority of people’s views whenever the hell they want, we lose one of the main principles of what this country was founded on. I’m sorry for everyone who disagreed with the majority decision. All I can hope for guys is to persuade enough people who are too ignorant to see your side of the argument to agree with you. After all, we live in a nation that voted for a mistake TWICE in a row. It’s a sad lesson to learn the the majority of Americans are ignorant boobs.
Yes and NO.
Yes becuz I personally think that banning gay marriage is wrong and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS business.
however since it was voted in by the people then i am not sure that it should be. but i still think it is no ones business but the couple wanting to marry.
On a side note I am shocked the government did jump on the chance to collect all those fees for marriage licenses.
If marriage isn’t a right, I vote that we abolish it for everyone. How does that make you feel? Congratulations, you have your first speck of empathy for what it must feel like to be gay right now.
Well, I guess it is no secret then that the tactic is to use activist judges to get your way, to contend with the will of the people. I thought Arnie was a Republican too. So much for democracy.
The voting system is a scam anyways. It’s turned into a circus. It isn’t the will of the people anymore, it’s the will of the most well-funded, charismatic, popular, technically-savvy, good-looking, well-spoken, well-connected political groups. I guess its always been that way, but I don’t think it’s been more misused than now.
Yes, because historically it hasn’t been the popular vote – or elected officials – who have protected the rights of minorities in this country. It has been the courts.
On the one hand, I would like to say yes because Proposition 8 is completely and utterly ridiculous and discriminatory and HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD COULD WE LOSE CALIFORNIA.
On the other hand, the voters have spoken. That’s the point of a democracy.
Either way, it is undemocratic. But perhaps sometimes that doesn’t matter.
They’ll try. The record is clear; in California and elsewhere. The major courts in this country have increasingly ceased to be a conclave for the sober interpretation of law and rendering of justice. Rather, they have become centers of autocracy and rule by judicial fiat. This is how a free nation is reduced to despotism; by the infiltration of its premier institutions by those who have no respect FOR its institutions. Only for themselves… and their own power.