Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify all same-sex marriages

[Lord of the Abyss]

Back to topic, why is it so hard for people to see that legalizing homosexual marriages does not mean society as a whole will be homosexuals?

Because these people tend to think that homosexuality is a choice, not inborn, and they think it's a huuuuuge temptation.

[ray245]

I got a feeling they got way too confused when people said that people don't discover their sexual preferences until their puberty began.

They (like me in the past) may believe that by not discovering it early, it means it isn't a inborn thing. That unless a baby or a young child is capable of deciding their sexual preferences, sexual preference isn't inborn. ( Frankly speaking, by their definition, most people in the world are homosexuals due to the fact that most kids will avoid other kids of the opposite gender to a certain extend. And using their arguments, it is not OK for people to be heterosexuals, applying the same argument on another side is one of the best way to point out the flaws in an argument I believe. )

[Alyeska]

And even if it is a choice? So what? What scares these people is their religious indoctrination. It is EVIL and a THREAT to society. They cannot prove this threat without resorting to religious dogma, but we already knew that.

[Durandal]

I remember the day I chose to be heterosexual. It involved a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

[Alyeska]

I remember the day I chose to be heterosexual. It involved a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

I didn't say that was the case. I merely pointed out that the choice angle is a pathetic copout by the bigots who can't actually define a reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

Since there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, choice becomes irrelevant. Its nothing more then a smokescreen for a failed argument. On the flip side, its a killer argument against the bigots because it sets up their entire line of reasoning to be invalidated if you show them biological basis for homosexuality and how it is indeed natural.

[The Yosemite Bear]

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." - unknown, misattributed to Ben Franklin

[Guardsman Bass]

Whether or not they see it as a choice (and most do), they consider homosexuality an abomination, and a society that tolerates abominations is a society devoid of God (in their opinion); a society where other "abominations" will thrive, and their children will be tempted away from God, with their souls in jeopardy. If you think tolerating something is going to bring God's wrath and jeopardize the souls of your children, you'll do anything to stop it (as long as you believe in the premises of God existing and homosexuality being a sin).

It's a horrible attitude and belief coming out of their belief system, and no doubt isn't helped by the fact that even many religious liberals (including probably Obama if you asked him on record) would say they think homosexuality is a sin - they just don't think it's their call. That's weak tea to many practicing, conservative christians.

[Broomstick]

On the flip side, its a killer argument against the bigots because it sets up their entire line of reasoning to be invalidated if you show them biological basis for homosexuality and how it is indeed natural.

No, it won't - I've encountered too many who will counter with greed, sloth, envy, anger, etc. all being biological and sins and Jeebus wants us to resist our sinful, evil natures. To them, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biological, the homosexual still has to overcome those desires if he is to get into heaven. Nevermind that their god is a sadist for giving people biological drives and impulses that he then commands them to resist.

[Alyeska]

On the flip side, its a killer argument against the bigots because it sets up their entire line of reasoning to be invalidated if you show them biological basis for homosexuality and how it is indeed natural.

No, it won't - I've encountered too many who will counter with greed, sloth, envy, anger, etc. all being biological and sins and Jeebus wants us to resist our sinful, evil natures. To them, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biological, the homosexual still has to overcome those desires if he is to get into heaven. Nevermind that their god is a sadist for giving people biological drives and impulses that he then commands them to resist.

Those are invalid reasons. I didn't say they can't come up with a reason. I just commented that they would have no real argument to make. Nothing stops an irrational argument.

[Broomstick]

Invalid to YOU - as you point out, when dealing with the irrational you can't win.

[Alyeska]

Invalid to YOU - as you point out, when dealing with the irrational you can't win.

Point.

[Setzer]

Traditional definition of marriage? Meaning between a man and however many women he feels like? If they're going to stick with tradition, they should at least have a sense of history.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I don't mean to necro this but the Prop 8 douchebags have apparently filed their response to AG Jerry Brown's public position on the matter.

Prop 8 Official Proponents Respond to New Legal Issue Raised by California Attorney General

Proponents say, "The Attorney General is inviting this Court to declare a constitutional revolution."

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As directed by the California Supreme Court, the official proponents of Proposition 8 and their campaign committee, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, today filed legal arguments responding to a new and unprecedented legal theory proposed by the California Attorney General to invalidate the voter-passed measure. Proposition 8 added a new section to the "Declaration of Rights" of the California Constitution, to read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Today's filing represents the latest development in three lawsuits originally filed by opponents of Proposition 8 claiming that it could not be enacted as an initiative amendment, but rather only by a constitutional "revision," which requires either a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a statewide Constitutional Convention.

Responding to the legal challenges in mid-December, the Attorney General agreed with the official proponents that Proposition 8 was properly enacted by voter initiative, and therefore did not require a vote of the Legislature. The Attorney General also rejected claims by Prop 8 opponents that the measure violated the separation of powers between the branches of government.

But in the concluding 15 pages of his December brief, the Attorney General proposed a new, unprecedented legal theory that Proposition 8 --- despite being a properly enacted constitutional amendment --- is itself unconstitutional because it violates "inalienable or natural rights."

That led the California Supreme Court to ask Proposition 8's official proponents, who had already intervened in the cases to defend the people's vote, to file a brief responding to the Attorney General's new "inalienable rights" theory. Here are some excerpts from today's court filing:

"We will not mince words. The Attorney General is inviting this Court to declare a constitutional revolution. His extra-constitutional vision is one of unprecedented judicial hegemony, a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed." (Page 1.)
"With all respect, the Attorney General has invented an entirely new theory, grounded in ringing principles of natural law and natural rights, but utterly without foundation in this Court's case law." (Page 1.)
"The [Attorney General's] argument is not only unprecedented but contradicts the most basic understanding of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. This Court has never presumed to have the power to strike down - in the name of undefined inalienable or natural rights - constitutional amendments properly enacted by the people." (Page 3.)
"The Attorney General's theory fails at every level because the people have the final word on what the California Constitution says and there is no higher legal authority within California to which the judiciary can appeal." (Page 4.)
"The Attorney General does not cite a single California case suggesting that the judiciary has authority to strike down properly-enacted amendments to the Constitution for violating article I, section 1 or undefined notions of inalienable rights or natural justice. This Court's jurisprudence is devoid of anything approaching such a far-reaching principle." (Page 4.)
"The Attorney General's theory would fundamentally alter the role of the California judiciary. ... It would, in brief, constitute the California judiciary as the supreme overseer of the people's use of their constitution-making power - a result patently contrary to popular sovereignty. The creation of such a judicial oligarchy would constitute a profound revision of the California Constitution." (Page 11.)
"The practical result of the Attorney General's theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights." (Page 13.)
Legal briefing by the parties will continue through January 2009. A hearing on the cases could be held as early as March 2009. Kenneth W. Starr, former Solicitor General of the United States and a former Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will argue the case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Proposition 8's official proponents.

Copies of written briefs are available online at the California Supreme Court's website:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supr ... /prop8.htm. Kenneth W. Starr will not be granting media interviews, but ProtectMarriage.com General Counsel Andrew Pugno is available to provide background information. The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this yet or how much weight their arguments have.

[Master of Ossus]

Hate to say it, but the AG's position seems like bullshit. Not only are "inalienable rights" not found in the US or the state constitutions (and even fundamental rights are alienable under defined circumstances, suggesting that NO rights are "inalienable"), but there's a long history of state regulation of marriage rights. From what I can tell, the AG doesn't have a leg to stand on. Hopefully it's just stalling for time while they figure something out.

[Darth Wong]

I thought the California Constitution had gender equality rights written into it. If it does, then there's the right he's referring to. Can that be overridden by a simple 50%+1 vote like Prop 8?

[apocolypse]

I thought the California Constitution had gender equality rights written into it. If it does, then there's the right he's referring to. Can that be overridden by a simple 50%+1 vote like Prop 8?

From what I recall of the constitution, there's an equal protection clause that is in place. Iirc it was also what was used when California overturned the ban on interracial marriage. And that can't be overridden by a simple majority. It has to pass a more strenuous process before going for public vote.

Imo, Brown is correct. I don't know how this prop made it to the public in the manner that it did because it is a constitutional revision, not an amendment. But I suppose that could be arguing semantics too.

[Master of Ossus]

I thought the California Constitution had gender equality rights written into it. If it does, then there's the right he's referring to. Can that be overridden by a simple 50%+1 vote like Prop 8?

The CA constitution doesn't say anything about equal gender rights, but even if it did then the Prop 8 vote would have equal standing since both are in the state constitution. In any case, the "inalienable right" he's referring to seems to be the right to marry, but that was only read into the CA constitution by the State Supreme Court, and that decision would clearly be overridden by a state constitutional amendement. I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

From what I recall of the constitution, there's an equal protection clause that is in place. Iirc it was also what was used when California overturned the ban on interracial marriage. And that can't be overridden by a simple majority. It has to pass a more strenuous process before going for public vote.

The FEDERAL equal protection clause that was used to strike down state bans on interracial marriage, but that decision was largely premised by the fact that distinctions based on race receive the highest possible constitutional scrutiny. Government distinctions based on gender do not receive such broad protections.

Brown's argument seems to boil down to, "The constitution mentions that there are inalienable rights, and those are more important than anything actually written into the constitution, gay marriage is one of them, and therefore that right should override the rest of the constitution." That is downright nonsense. Hopefully he's got a better argument tucked away, somewhere.

[Edi]

It depends on what weight you assign to the different principles, MoO. If there is an equal protection clause somewhere (either the California constitution or the federal one) that does not specifically exclude gender equality or equality for gays, then Brown's position is entirely correct and the Prop 8 assholes don't have a leg to stand on. The excerpts of their position in that article are all completely full of shit and rest on the assumption that whatever 50%+1 of the population says is automatically the supreme law of the land when it is a fact that this is not so. They do not address the main opposing point at all, but favor blustering and threatening instead.

[Ender]

It depends on what weight you assign to the different principles, MoO. If there is an equal protection clause somewhere (either the California constitution or the federal one) that does not specifically exclude gender equality or equality for gays, then Brown's position is entirely correct and the Prop 8 assholes don't have a leg to stand on. The excerpts of their position in that article are all completely full of shit and rest on the assumption that whatever 50%+1 of the population says is automatically the supreme law of the land when it is a fact that this is not so. They do not address the main opposing point at all, but favor blustering and threatening instead.

None of that changes the fact that "the unwritten parts override the written parts" is a really shaky argument. If someone tried that here it wouldn't take long for that to get flushed to the HoS.

[Edi]

None of that changes the fact that "the unwritten parts override the written parts" is a really shaky argument. If someone tried that here it wouldn't take long for that to get flushed to the HoS.

What do you mean? If there is an equal protection clause written anywhere, the Prop 8 bullshit is invalid. There is already a written clause of equality before the law in the federal constitution (which supersedes a state constitution unless the state constitution grants more rights) and its amendments, so if these asstards want to make the argument that because 50% + 1 say gays should not marry and marriage is gender-restricted, they have the burden of proof that their cause does not in fact entail a substantial alteration of equal protection.

There was an article posted earlier in this thread where the AG's reasoning is discussed in more detail than the most recent one, and that reasoning is legally sound within the parameters of the info given in that article. It's based on how a legal system and its underpinnings work. The latest article just contains a bunch of bluster, bullshit and distortion from the Prop 8 crowd who couldn't find their constitutional ass with a map, a compass, written instruction and an expert of constitutional law to guide them.

In debates about how the legal system and constitutional law work, the things written in the constitutional document in and of themselves are not automatically the ultimate final word, because two or more constitutional principles can conflict with each other in certain circumstances. In those cases (e.g. this one) the base principles and axioms the whole system was built on must be weighed and a decision made on that basis.

The Prop 8 crowd is bleating bullshit and they'd be the ones going to the HoS here.

[Darth Hoth]

No, it won't - I've encountered too many who will counter with greed, sloth, envy, anger, etc. all being biological and sins and Jeebus wants us to resist our sinful, evil natures. To them, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biological, the homosexual still has to overcome those desires if he is to get into heaven. Nevermind that their god is a sadist for giving people biological drives and impulses that he then commands them to resist.

Actually, fundies think that Satan put the homosexuality gene (or whatever) into humanity, not God. So under those terms it makes sense that God can hate it without being sadist. Or at least, so I gather.

[Broomstick]

None of that changes the fact that "the unwritten parts override the written parts" is a really shaky argument. If someone tried that here it wouldn't take long for that to get flushed to the HoS.

What do you mean? If there is an equal protection clause written anywhere, the Prop 8 bullshit is invalid. There is already a written clause of equality before the law in the federal constitution (which supersedes a state constitution unless the state constitution grants more rights) and its amendments, so if these asstards want to make the argument that because 50% + 1 say gays should not marry and marriage is gender-restricted, they have the burden of proof that their cause does not in fact entail a substantial alteration of equal protection.

In some areas a state constitution does, in fact have ultimate authority and not the Federal constitution. While the Federal document makes it clear that a marriage in one state must be recognized by all states, requirements for marriage have always been left to the states. Yes, laws against interracial marriage were overturned based on the Federal document. However, while there are Federal amendments that deal with race equality, there are none regarding gender equality. But that's why the anti-gay-marriage people are so desperate and would like a Federal amendment against gay marriage. The first time the US Supreme Court says gay marriage is OK in one state then ALL states must recognize it as legit regardless of what state constitutions say. If they can keep it out of the SCotUS, if they can block it state by state, then they never risk that final Federal overturning of the law.

Most states, fortunately, have a much higher requirements for amending state constitutions than does California.

[CmdrWilkens]

The article does a nice job of shotchanging the AG opinion because the "inalienable right" as the right to marry was indeed read into the Constitution during the effort to allow interacial marriages BUT the argument is two fold:

-If the right to marry is inalienable (as the Supreme Court has held) AND the Constitution requires equal protection of all citizens then any change to the constiution which alters the rights of a class of citizens with regards to that inalienable right should automatically fall under the "revision" clause of amending the state constitution.

In other words had the right which was denied not been inalienable then the equal protection and new clause would have been co-equal and there would beno other weight of law to suggest that this was anything more than an amendment basically specifying "equal protection except..." It is only because the right which is being addressed is considered so fundamental that changes the tenor of the amendment to be a "revision."

[Kanastrous]

No, it won't - I've encountered too many who will counter with greed, sloth, envy, anger, etc. all being biological and sins and Jeebus wants us to resist our sinful, evil natures. To them, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biological, the homosexual still has to overcome those desires if he is to get into heaven. Nevermind that their god is a sadist for giving people biological drives and impulses that he then commands them to resist.

Actually, fundies think that Satan put the homosexuality gene (or whatever) into humanity, not God. So under those terms it makes sense that God can hate it without being sadist. Or at least, so I gather.

Gotta love those fundies. They seem to credit Shaitan with as much power, as God.

[Master of Ossus]

It depends on what weight you assign to the different principles, MoO. If there is an equal protection clause somewhere (either the California constitution or the federal one) that does not specifically exclude gender equality or equality for gays, then Brown's position is entirely correct and the Prop 8 assholes don't have a leg to stand on.

Bullshit. Equal Protection applies to people of different genders but does not provide the same range of protections included for people of different of different races--the distinction that the government makes is not as suspect.

The excerpts of their position in that article are all completely full of shit and rest on the assumption that whatever 50%+1 of the population says is automatically the supreme law of the land when it is a fact that this is not so. They do not address the main opposing point at all, but favor blustering and threatening instead.

Except that they really are dealing with an AG who's trying to create an entirely unprecedented legal theory that really would undermine the position of the state constitution in comparison with the courts and executive. Frankly, from what I can tell, Brown should face disciplinary action for this. He has no good faith basis for presenting these arguments.