Massive, crushing defeat for Marriage Equality in New York

[Duckie]

Awww, your poor straight majority feelings are hurt?

You deserve to be "backhanded" more by judges imposing gay rights (no fucking quotes) on you, if you take such offense to it. And backhanded in real life, for your views. I bet nobody has ever done that to you. I'm not an advocate of hitting children, but if only your mom had given you a few slaps for being a dumbshit instead of just giving you fetal alcohol syndrome maybe you wouldn't be such a prat.

This isn't on your terms. Minority rights are for fucking now. This isn't about when you or the aggregate of society think we deserve it. Fuck you.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Domestic partnership and civil union laws already exist for states like California and Maine. Fighting for marriage equality is the logical next step.

That it is. But that a step has been provably taken with the support of the majority indicates that the majority can enact the next step as well and, given trends, might very well do so without a court backhanding them.

Proposition 8 buttfucks the 14th amendment multiple ways. The appropriate method to repeal proposition is through the federal courts, not through a popular vote. The only reason why pushing for another popular vote to overturn proposition 8 is an accepted strategy in the gay community is because there is barely any trust for the supreme court of this country to be impartial. The fact remains that the CA state supreme court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right for same-sex couples. No minority should have to fight to keep their constitutionally recognized rights from being overturned by a popular vote (decided by a mere simple majority), especially when the people who are leading the charge to take away those rights have vast financial, political and organizational advantages.

[Duckie]

I like how Serafine is morally offended that someone could impose gay rights before the public wills it, thinking it better to take a hundred years if the public doesn't want it until generations later rather than violate the all-powerful will of the majority. He considers it a backhand, an insult, a slap in the face from judges to society if they force people to treat someone equally if they don't want to.

What a perverted and mean little mind his is. I can think of no nobler statement right now than to say merely that I am not him. It is a beautiful and wonderful sentiment all human beings can make and be united in mutual pride of, save one.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Proposition 8 did not create two separate classes of citizens. It created at least three (or more depending on how you see it) classes of citizens. You have straight citizens who can marry, gay citizens who cannot marry, and gay citizens who are married. Arguably, you can also say there's a fourth class of citizens who are gay that were once married but can no longer marry. There is plenty of SCOTUS precedent for classifying the LGBT community as a suspect class. As blatant of a violation of the 14th amendment proposition 8 is, its egregious discrimination is only overshadowed by the sad fact that so few people will trust our national supreme court to be impartial arbiters of constitutional law.

[Master of Ossus]

Proposition 8 buttfucks the 14th amendment multiple ways. The appropriate method to repeal proposition is through the federal courts, not through a popular vote. The only reason why pushing for another popular vote to overturn proposition 8 is an accepted strategy in the gay community is because there is barely any trust for the supreme court of this country to be impartial. The fact remains that the CA state supreme court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right for same-sex couples.

No, they didn't. That was under the old CA constitution; not the one that was amended by Proposition 8 to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the California Constitution granted such rights to same-sex couples. Their ruling had nothing to do with the US Constitution to which you apparently look for vindication.

No minority should have to fight to keep their constitutionally recognized rights from being overturned by a popular vote (decided by a mere simple majority), especially when the people who are leading the charge to take away those rights have vast financial, political and organizational advantages.

So you want a court to have to decide between a state's voters' ability to amend their constitution and a minority group whose alleged rights would be withheld as a result of such a constitutional provision?

Proposition 8 did not create two separate classes of citizens. It created at least three (or more depending on how you see it) classes of citizens. You have straight citizens who can marry, gay citizens who cannot marry, and gay citizens who are married. Arguably, you can also say there's a fourth class of citizens who are gay that were once married but can no longer marry.

The argument the other way is that it classifies only two groups separately: men and women. You can easily characterize it as an issue of "straight" v. "gay," or somesuch, but that classification does not seem inherently better, particularly since the actual text of Prop 8 makes no allusion to "gay" or "straight."

There is plenty of SCOTUS precedent for classifying the LGBT community as a suspect class.

Citations? The only suspect classes I'm aware of are race, national origin, and similar. Not even gender or mental disability qualifies as a suspect classification (although I think O'Connor dropped a footnote about gays in one of her dissenting opinions, somewhere).

As blatant of a violation of the 14th amendment proposition 8 is, its egregious discrimination is only overshadowed by the sad fact that so few people will trust our national supreme court to be impartial arbiters of constitutional law.

Or everyone may disagree with your framing of the classification drawn by Proposition 8.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Proposition 8 buttfucks the 14th amendment multiple ways. The appropriate method to repeal proposition is through the federal courts, not through a popular vote. The only reason why pushing for another popular vote to overturn proposition 8 is an accepted strategy in the gay community is because there is barely any trust for the supreme court of this country to be impartial. The fact remains that the CA state supreme court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right for same-sex couples.

No, they didn't. That was under the old CA constitution; not the one that was amended by Proposition 8 to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the California Constitution granted such rights to same-sex couples. Their ruling had nothing to do with the US Constitution to which you apparently look for vindication.

Err... the campaign to stop proposition 8 was conducted during the old CA constitution. That was a fight to stop a popular vote from rescinding what was a state constitutionally protected right.

No minority should have to fight to keep their constitutionally recognized rights from being overturned by a popular vote (decided by a mere simple majority), especially when the people who are leading the charge to take away those rights have vast financial, political and organizational advantages.

So you want a court to have to decide between a state's voters' ability to amend their constitution and a minority group whose alleged rights would be withheld as a result of such a constitutional provision?

California voter initiatives have been annulled before by federal courts. This has not eliminated CA voter's rights to directly change their government. It has only limited it. This is the same false dilemma bullshit that the religious right have been pushing. It's either gay marriage rights or voter rights! Oh noes!

Proposition 8 did not create two separate classes of citizens. It created at least three (or more depending on how you see it) classes of citizens. You have straight citizens who can marry, gay citizens who cannot marry, and gay citizens who are married. Arguably, you can also say there's a fourth class of citizens who are gay that were once married but can no longer marry.

The argument the other way is that it classifies only two groups separately: men and women. You can easily characterize it as an issue of "straight" v. "gay," or somesuch, but that classification does not seem inherently better, particularly since the actual text of Prop 8 makes no allusion to "gay" or "straight."

Are you saying that the lack of direct reference to the terms 'gay' or 'straight' means that the law does not or is not intended to affect people of specific sexual orientations?

There is plenty of SCOTUS precedent for classifying the LGBT community as a suspect class.

Citations? The only suspect classes I'm aware of are race, national origin, and similar. Not even gender or mental disability qualifies as a suspect classification (although I think O'Connor dropped a footnote about gays in one of her dissenting opinions, somewhere).

It's not strict scrutiny but some level of rational basis scrutiny have been applied to LGBT individuals. Ted Olson and David Boise are drawing from a number of cases, including Romver v. Evans, in the current federal case to overturn proposition 8.

As blatant of a violation of the 14th amendment proposition 8 is, its egregious discrimination is only overshadowed by the sad fact that so few people will trust our national supreme court to be impartial arbiters of constitutional law.

Or everyone may disagree with your framing of the classification drawn by Proposition 8.

What the fuck does this even mean? Clearly, everyone does not disagree with my framing of my classification since it's an argument taken by the plaintiffs of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Oh, and considering how voter initiatives are qualified on the ballot in California, it's no secret that I think that the process is a big farce.

[Serafine666]

Proposition 8 buttfucks the 14th amendment multiple ways. The appropriate method to repeal proposition is through the federal courts, not through a popular vote. The only reason why pushing for another popular vote to overturn proposition 8 is an accepted strategy in the gay community is because there is barely any trust for the supreme court of this country to be impartial. The fact remains that the CA state supreme court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right for same-sex couples. No minority should have to fight to keep their constitutionally recognized rights from being overturned by a popular vote (decided by a mere simple majority), especially when the people who are leading the charge to take away those rights have vast financial, political and organizational advantages.

The appropriate method is a popular vote and, conveniently enough, the method you can win with. Even people who support Proposition 8 were probably at least a little surprised that a state as progressive as California would pass such a thing; of course, I was pretty surprised that there was a strong majority passing Measure 36 in Oregon. At any rate, the reason that the CA court was (in essence) overturned is that they are an appeals court and are limited to interpreting the relevant law. With the law changed, the CA court could no longer rule that the law permitted gay marriage although it may have ruled that the amendment was improper in some legal fashion. Good luck to your cause, though, and I expect that I'll see victory for the anti-8 side in 2012 (I think that's the next time the issue can be voted on).

[Master of Ossus]

Err... the campaign to stop proposition 8 was conducted during the old CA constitution. That was a fight to stop a popular vote from rescinding what was a state constitutionally protected right.

... By amending the California Constitution to overrule a judicial interpretation of it. What is your point?

California voter initiatives have been annulled before by federal courts. This has not eliminated CA voter's rights to directly change their government. It has only limited it. This is the same false dilemma bullshit that the religious right have been pushing. It's either gay marriage rights or voter rights! Oh noes!

It's not a false dilemma--that is precisely the choice that you would foist upon the courts.

Are you saying that the lack of direct reference to the terms 'gay' or 'straight' means that the law does not or is not intended to affect people of specific sexual orientations?

I'm saying that that isn't the classification that is drawn by the law, and thus not the one that would be evaluated on Federal constitutional grounds.

It's not strict scrutiny but some level of rational basis scrutiny have been applied to LGBT individuals. Ted Olson and David Boise are drawing from a number of cases, including Romver v. Evans, in the current federal case to overturn proposition 8.

"Rational basis" is the lowest fucking form of "scrutiny" that exists. All a state has to do is show that their law is kinda, sorta, somehow, maybe rationally related to some legitimate purpose. Even Prop 8 self-evidently fulfills that standard.

What the fuck does this even mean? Clearly, everyone does not disagree with my framing of my classification since it's an argument taken by the plaintiffs of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

But it's not the right classification standard for constitutional review.

Oh, and considering how voter initiatives are qualified on the ballot in California, it's no secret that I think that the process is a big farce.

So what? "I don't like it" is not a legally cognizable argument. It's not even an argument.

And if you think it's so easy to get the California Constitution amended through a voter initiative, why are you whining to courts and insisting that they absolutely have to be the one to act on this, rather than just amending the Constitution?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The appropriate method is a popular vote and, conveniently enough, the method you can win with. Even people who support Proposition 8 were probably at least a little surprised that a state as progressive as California would pass such a thing; of course, I was pretty surprised that there was a strong majority passing Measure 36 in Oregon. At any rate, the reason that the CA court was (in essence) overturned is that they are an appeals court and are limited to interpreting the relevant law. With the law changed, the CA court could no longer rule that the law permitted gay marriage although it may have ruled that the amendment was improper in some legal fashion. Good luck to your cause, though, and I expect that I'll see victory for the anti-8 side in 2012 (I think that's the next time the issue can be voted on).

I very well understand the legal implications of prop 8 and I have to strongly disagree both legally and ethically on the method that is most appropriate to overturn it. On the state level, there is no question that the only method of overturning it is through the ballot box. On a federal level, proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment and thus should be annulled by the supreme court. There is a history of Californian voter initiatives that were passed and struck down in the federal court for violating the US constitution. Proposition 8 should be no different. Unfortunately, considering the politically charged nature of the issue, most LGBT right activists fear the lack of impartiality of SCOTUS on this matter. This country has seen its share of terrible rulings from Plessy v Ferguson to Korematsu v United States.

And on an ethical level, it's just entirely fucked up for a unjustifiably unpopular minority to have to fight to be equally treated through popular vote. It's like the unpopular kid in school that has to plead their bullies not to beat them up or steal their lunch money.

[Serafine666]

I very well understand the legal implications of prop 8 and I have to strongly disagree both legally and ethically on the method that is most appropriate to overturn it. On the state level, there is no question that the only method of overturning it is through the ballot box. On a federal level, proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment and thus should be annulled by the supreme court. There is a history of Californian voter initiatives that were passed and struck down in the federal court for violating the US constitution. Proposition 8 should be no different. Unfortunately, considering the politically charged nature of the issue, most LGBT right activists fear the lack of impartiality of SCOTUS on this matter. This country has seen its share of terrible rulings from Plessy v Ferguson to Korematsu v United States.

And on an ethical level, it's just entirely fucked up for a unjustifiably unpopular minority to have to fight to be equally treated through popular vote. It's like the unpopular kid in school that has to plead their bullies not to beat them up or steal their lunch money.

I agree that it's fucked-up that a minority has to fight for its rights by pleading to the majority but would you prefer that a minority institution like the SCOTUS which you admittedly do not trust to be fair to you? The majority can be slapped down on various levels from the federal courts to state courts to a federal law... but you can only undo what the SCOTUS does with a federal amendment or its own change of heart.

[Master of Ossus]

I very well understand the legal implications of prop 8 and I have to strongly disagree both legally and ethically on the method that is most appropriate to overturn it. On the state level, there is no question that the only method of overturning it is through the ballot box. On a federal level, proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment and thus should be annulled by the supreme court. There is a history of Californian voter initiatives that were passed and struck down in the federal court for violating the US constitution. Proposition 8 should be no different. Unfortunately, considering the politically charged nature of the issue, most LGBT right activists fear the lack of impartiality of SCOTUS on this matter. This country has seen its share of terrible rulings from Plessy v Ferguson to Korematsu v United States.

Unlike either of those cases, this one is pretty cut-and-dry against the minority. You lose. For reasons that have nothing to do with "impartiality." The classification set up by Prop 8 passes muster under any rational basis test.

And on an ethical level, it's just entirely fucked up for a unjustifiably unpopular minority to have to fight to be equally treated through popular vote. It's like the unpopular kid in school that has to plead their bullies not to beat them up or steal their lunch money.

Agreed.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Err... the campaign to stop proposition 8 was conducted during the old CA constitution. That was a fight to stop a popular vote from rescinding what was a state constitutionally protected right.

... By amending the California Constitution to overrule a judicial interpretation of it. What is your point?

My point was the CA Supreme Court did once rule that marriage was a constitutionally protected right (even though you responded with "No, they didn't"). I don't give a flying fuck if it was under the old CA constitution. The fact is that it happened and a minority group had to defend it through a popular vote.

California voter initiatives have been annulled before by federal courts. This has not eliminated CA voter's rights to directly change their government. It has only limited it. This is the same false dilemma bullshit that the religious right have been pushing. It's either gay marriage rights or voter rights! Oh noes!

It's not a false dilemma--that is precisely the choice that you would foist upon the courts.

Read the red, bolded section of my response.

Are you saying that the lack of direct reference to the terms 'gay' or 'straight' means that the law does not or is not intended to affect people of specific sexual orientations?

I'm saying that that isn't the classification that is drawn by the law, and thus not the one that would be evaluated on Federal constitutional grounds.

So then its discriminatory effects on individuals of certain sexual orientations would not be constitutionally scrutinized because the law doesn't directly reference such said terms?

It's not strict scrutiny but some level of rational basis scrutiny have been applied to LGBT individuals. Ted Olson and David Boise are drawing from a number of cases, including Romver v. Evans, in the current federal case to overturn proposition 8.

"Rational basis" is the lowest fucking form of "scrutiny" that exists. All a state has to do is show that their law is kinda, sorta, somehow, maybe rationally related to some legitimate purpose. Even Prop 8 self-evidently fulfills that standard.

And what fucking legitimate purpose does proposition 8 fulfill?

Oh, and considering how voter initiatives are qualified on the ballot in California, it's no secret that I think that the process is a big farce.

So what? "I don't like it" is not a legally cognizable argument. It's not even an argument.

It's not a legal argument.

And if you think it's so easy to get the California Constitution amended through a voter initiative, why are you whining to courts and insisting that they absolutely have to be the one to act on this, rather than just amending the Constitution?

Perhaps your vision must have blurred when you were reading over the part where I mentioned that the financial, political and organizational advantages the anti-gay bigots have make the amendment and electoral process a much simpler task for them than it is for us.

EDIT: Actually, to add to this. I AM currently working to amend the CA constitution. I have been doing so with various groups in Los Angeles and in California for the past several months. Unlike the religious establishment, we actually have to build a fucking massive statewide support infrastructure from the ground up. The reason why I am whining to the courts is that the fact that I have to sacrifice years my life in so that I can be treated equally under the law IS SO UTTERLY FUCKED!!

[Master of Ossus]

My point was the CA Supreme Court did once rule that marriage was a constitutionally protected right (even though you responded with "No, they didn't"). I don't give a flying fuck if it was under the old CA constitution. The fact is that it happened and a minority group had to defend it through a popular vote.

Which is an utterly pointless statement. Who cares what gay rights were under totally different legal standards?

Read the red, bolded section of my response.

Which completely dodges the point: the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't support you in the way you obviously think that it does. The classification drawn by Prop 8 self-evidently satisfies the rational basis review to which you would subject it.

So then its discriminatory effects on individuals of certain sexual orientations would not be constitutionally scrutinized because the law doesn't directly reference such said terms?

Because the classification that is drawn determines what standard of review the law must be subjected to, and the classification, here, does not mandate some higher standard of review. Nor do your idiotic appeals to "WAAAH! It's discriminatory" make any difference whatsoever: rational basis isn't nearly a strong enough standard to strike down Prop 8.

You obviously have absolutely no clue how the Fourteenth Amendment works.

And what fucking legitimate purpose does proposition 8 fulfill?

It's argued to be a "defense of marriage" act. It might, maybe, kinda, sorta, make people take their marriages more seriously. That's more than sufficient to get it to sail through on constitutional grounds--that is what "rational basis review" entails.

It's not a legal argument.

Yet you present it in defense of your claims that Prop 8 is somehow unconstitutional.

Perhaps your vision must have blurred when you were reading over the part where I mentioned that the financial, political and organizational advantages the anti-gay bigots have make the amendment and electoral process a much simpler task for them than it is for us.

I disagree, but moreover it doesn't matter. "Waah, I don't like it" doesn't make any difference in the law.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I very well understand the legal implications of prop 8 and I have to strongly disagree both legally and ethically on the method that is most appropriate to overturn it. On the state level, there is no question that the only method of overturning it is through the ballot box. On a federal level, proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment and thus should be annulled by the supreme court. There is a history of Californian voter initiatives that were passed and struck down in the federal court for violating the US constitution. Proposition 8 should be no different. Unfortunately, considering the politically charged nature of the issue, most LGBT right activists fear the lack of impartiality of SCOTUS on this matter. This country has seen its share of terrible rulings from Plessy v Ferguson to Korematsu v United States.

And on an ethical level, it's just entirely fucked up for a unjustifiably unpopular minority to have to fight to be equally treated through popular vote. It's like the unpopular kid in school that has to plead their bullies not to beat them up or steal their lunch money.

I agree that it's fucked-up that a minority has to fight for its rights by pleading to the majority but would you prefer that a minority institution like the SCOTUS which you admittedly do not trust to be fair to you? The majority can be slapped down on various levels from the federal courts to state courts to a federal law... but you can only undo what the SCOTUS does with a federal amendment or its own change of heart.

I would prefer SCOTUS to uphold 14th amendment and protect minorities from having their rights taken away, which is precisely what proposition 8 does. Speaking of impartiality, I don't see how people of specific sexual orientations do not fall under the definition of a strict scrutiny suspect class.

[Serafine666]

I would prefer that SCOTUS uphold the 14th Amendment and protect minorities from having their rights taken away, which is precisely what Proposition 8 does.

You mention rights in the plural. Besides marriage, which rights are you saying are being taken away?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My point was the CA Supreme Court did once rule that marriage was a constitutionally protected right (even though you responded with "No, they didn't"). I don't give a flying fuck if it was under the old CA constitution. The fact is that it happened and a minority group had to defend it through a popular vote.

Which is an utterly pointless statement. Who cares what gay rights were under totally different legal standards?

I see what you did there with that original quote. You should divorce the last line with the previous ones as the statement was not referring to the legality of prop 8 but rather the fucked up nature of the situation.

Read the red, bolded section of my response.

Which completely dodges the point: the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't support you in the way you obviously think that it does. The classification drawn by Prop 8 self-evidently satisfies the rational basis review to which you would subject it.

How does it dodge the point? You claimed annulling prop 8 removes the rights of Californian voters to amend their constitution. And I said that was a false dilemma because annulling prop 8 would only limit rather than eliminate their voting rights as evidenced by the list of Californian voter initiatives that have been annulled by federal courts.

So then its discriminatory effects on individuals of certain sexual orientations would not be constitutionally scrutinized because the law doesn't directly reference such said terms?

Because the classification that is drawn determines what standard of review the law must be subjected to, and the classification, here, does not mandate some higher standard of review. Nor do your idiotic appeals to "WAAAH! It's discriminatory" make any difference whatsoever: rational basis isn't nearly a strong enough standard to strike down Prop 8.

You obviously have absolutely no clue how the Fourteenth Amendment works.

And what fucking legitimate purpose does proposition 8 fulfill?

It's argued to be a "defense of marriage" act. It might, maybe, kinda, sorta, make people take their marriages more seriously. That's more than sufficient to get it to sail through on constitutional grounds--that is what "rational basis review" entails.

A major argument of the plaintiffs of Perry v Schwarzenegger is that proposition 8's one and only purpose is of pure discrimination. In fact, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs have gone to considerable lengths to make that case.

It's not a legal argument.

Yet you present it in defense of your claims that Prop 8 is somehow unconstitutional.

What the fuck? How the hell did you construe that as a legal argument? Let me rephrase myself: Oh, and considering how voter initiatives are qualified on the ballot in California, it's no secret that I think that the process is a big farce.

Perhaps your vision must have blurred when you were reading over the part where I mentioned that the financial, political and organizational advantages the anti-gay bigots have make the amendment and electoral process a much simpler task for them than it is for us.

I disagree, but moreover it doesn't matter. "Waah, I don't like it" doesn't make any difference in the law.

Oh for christ sakes, at no point did I make "I don't like it" a legal argument.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I would prefer that SCOTUS uphold the 14th Amendment and protect minorities from having their rights taken away, which is precisely what Proposition 8 does.

You mention rights in the plural. Besides marriage, which rights are you saying are being taken away?

LGBT rights are being attacked on a constant basis. Marriage rights tend to be at the top since it makes headlines and it's also the one waged in states like CA and NY. But rights such as adoption, freedom from employment or housing discrimination are constantly either being taken away or being fought against in other states. Kalamazoo, MI also had a ballot measure asking voters to rescind employment and housing discrimination rights early in November this year. It failed (thank goodness) but of course, it didn't receive much press. I believe LGBT adoption rights are being disputed in states like Arkansas. And of course, many states with anti-marriage constitutional amendments also bar civil unions or domestic partnerships.

[Serafine666]

LGBT rights are being attacked on a constant basis. Marriage rights tend to be at the top since it makes headlines and it's also the one waged in states like CA and NY. But rights such as adoption, freedom from employment or housing discrimination are constantly either being taken away or being fought against in other states. Kalamazoo, MI also had a ballot measure asking voters to rescind employment and housing discrimination rights early in November this year. It failed (thank goodness) but of course, it didn't receive much press. I believe LGBT adoption rights are being disputed in states like Arkansas. And of course, many states with anti-marriage constitutional amendments also bar civil unions or domestic partnerships.

I'm sorry, I wasn't specific enough: what rights does Proposition 8 take away since you said that taking rights (in the plural) away is what Proposition 8 does?
Also, I was unaware that ANYONE had a legal right to adopt a child. I knew it was a privilage, of course, but haven't ever heard that it was considered a right.

[Duckie]

There are almost 1400 legal rights in a marriage which were granted to LGBT citizens and then taken away. Taking away the ability to gain those rights via marrying is the same thing as removing those rights from a person, even if that person was not at that very moment utilising them.

In any case, adoption is not the only right. Are you honestly ignorant or just being purposefully ignorant? There is no shame in ignorance, but to deny that marriage provides many legal rights is pretty silly if you were doing it on purpose.

[Master of Ossus]

How does it dodge the point? You claimed annulling prop 8 removes the rights of Californian voters to amend their constitution. And I said that was a false dilemma because annulling prop 8 would only limit rather than eliminate their voting rights as evidenced by the list of Californian voter initiatives that have been annulled by federal courts.

Which circumscribes Californians' ability to amend their constitution. Which is the point. There may still be something left, but don't pretend as if these are completely unrelated.

A major argument of the plaintiffs of Perry v Schwarzenegger is that proposition 8's one and only purpose is of pure discrimination. In fact, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs have gone to considerable lengths to make that case.

And, yet, it's obviously rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. I just named it. The plaintiffs can stick their fingers in their ears all they want, but that doesn't make counter-arguments go away.

Oh for christ sakes, at no point did I make "I don't like it" a legal argument.

Look, I thought we were having a discussion about the legal merits, here. You've consistently claimed that SCOTUS wouldn't hold for gays in this case because of some pervasive bias, even though I think that under the existing legal standards there is no legal way to find that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In response, you've only cited only to some bizarre plaintiff's claims, apparently thinking that these represent legally unassailable reasoning even though I've described the actual legal standards that should be applied and explained why the other side has a stronger case. You also apparently ignore the fact that gays have wasted my taxpayer dollars before by trotting out ridiculous arguments in court before (e.g., Jerry Brown's absolutely retarded and unprecedented attack on it in the California court system).

My fundamental point is that, contrary to your bald assertions, Prop 8 is legally on the up-and-up, and trotting out emotional appeals isn't going to change that.

[Serafine666]

There are almost 1400 legal rights in a marriage which were granted to LGBT citizens and then taken away. Adoption is not the only right.

You're shitting me. The government has attached 1400 legal rights to a marriage? I knew that there were a bunch of them but 1400?

[Serafine666]

In any case, adoption is not the only right. Are you honestly ignorant or just being purposefully ignorant? There is no shame in ignorance, but to deny that marriage provides many legal rights is pretty silly if you were doing it on purpose.

I genuinely honestly had no idea that there were that many rights attached to marriage. How the hell did the government come up with that many?

Sorry... replied to your post before you edited it to include the second line.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Serafine666, Proposition 8 technically only removes the right to the title marriage since domestic partnership laws exist but it creates a "separate but equal" situation in the CA constitution when it comes to marriage rights for same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships are not socially recognized so LGBT couples constantly run into problems dealing with their rights that domestic partnerships supposedly "ensures". It's essentially an inferior institution akin to how separate facilities for racial minorities were inherently inferior to facilities for Caucasians.

[Serafine666]

Serafine666, Proposition 8 technically only removes the right to the title marriage since domestic partnership laws exist but it creates a "separate but equal" situation in the CA constitution when it comes to marriage rights for same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships are not socially recognized so LGBT couples constantly run into problems dealing with their rights that domestic partnerships supposedly "ensures". It's essentially an inferior institution akin to how separate facilities for racial minorities were inherently inferior to facilities for Caucasians.

Don't you think that undertaking a legal strategy to make the concept of gays marrying socially acceptable is a fruitless undertaking? Certainly, you can mandate the title and the rights but how does making it legal create social acceptance?