Massive, crushing defeat for Marriage Equality in New York

[Duckie]

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.

Don't look at me, I'ven't a clue. Taxes and hospital visits and power of attorney and inheritance I guess, which probably account for some. Only Allah knows what the rest are.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

I never said they were unrelated. I only said claiming that annulling proposition 8 would eliminate the rights of voters to amend the constitution was a false dilemma fallacy. I also said limiting CA voters' rights have happened before and it wouldn't be some groundbreaking ruling that would completely eliminate their rights to amend the constitution as the prop 8 defenders would like to have you believe.

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.

Discrimination born out of animus is a legitimate government purpose? I certainly didn't know that!

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.

See above.

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).

That was a court case brought about by Equality California and Jerry Brown. I don't know how the majority of gays have anything to do with how large advocacy organizations file their court cases.

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.

In respect to prop 8's legality, I disagree. But in regards to some of my statements, I think I deserve to be able to vent a bit on the topic considering I'm the one who got short-ended here last year.

[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.

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?

Like I said earlier, public policy also affects popular opinion. The legalization of marriage for same-sex couples does push the social acceptance bar a little further. That said, the purpose of pushing marriage equity laws is not just for social acceptance. That is a far much more daunting task. But you would be fooling yourself to think that legal inequalities do not harm LGBT individuals. The LGBT community is discriminated socially and legally. Eliminating legal discrimination simply relieves some of the harm that is brought on by society.

[Serafine666]

Don't look at me, I'ven't a clue. Taxes and hospital visits and power of attorney and inheritance I guess, which probably account for some. Only Allah knows what the rest are.

Maybe Allah and God can get together over a bottle of tequilla and reveal the answer to that guy who wrote "A Year of Living Biblically" while he's doing his Moses impression. I'd get a kick out of seeing that guy on the TV preaching the Good Word or whatever.

[Serafine666]

Like I said earlier, public policy also affects popular opinion. The legalization of marriage for same-sex couples does push the social acceptance bar a little further. That said, the purpose of pushing marriage equity laws is not just for social acceptance. That is a far much more daunting task. But you would be fooling yourself to think that legal inequalities do not harm LGBT individuals. The LGBT community is discriminated socially and legally. Eliminating legal discrimination simply relieves some of the harm that is brought on by society.

Limiting the damage until you can eliminate the problem entirely? Hmm... well, it's certainly sensible although I'll watch with interest to see if it's actually implemented sensibly.

[Master of Ossus]

Discrimination born out of animus is a legitimate government purpose? I certainly didn't know that!

I grow tired of your legal idiocy. Getting people to take marriage seriously is a legitimate government purpose.

That was a court case brought about by Equality California and Jerry Brown. I don't know how the majority of gays have anything to do with how large advocacy organizations file their court cases.

Uh... Jerry Brown was acting as the Attorney General at the time; you can't hide behind the "he wasn't me" argument because he certainly was representing all Californians when he brought that moronic suit. But in any case, what's your point? My statement is that you cannot cite bullshit legal arguments filed by bullshit plaintiffs and pretend that their arguments are unassailable when they're obviously not. There is self-evidently a legitimate government purpose involved, and Fourteenth Amendment provides no protection from that for groups whose treatment falls under rational basis review.

In respect to prop 8's legality, I disagree. But in regards to some of my statements, I think I deserve to be able to vent a bit on the topic considering I'm the one who got short-ended here last year.

Fine, but don't run around whinging that the big bad court system is soooo biased against you when there are, at minimum, very powerful legal arguments that can be made against your case and which you don't understand because you haven't bothered to research the actual legal standards involved.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Limiting the damage until you can eliminate the problem entirely? Hmm... well, it's certainly sensible although I'll watch with interest to see if it's actually implemented sensibly.

How would you eliminate the problem entirely? Eliminating homophobia is like eliminating racism. These are socially and culturally ingrained prejudices that take decades if not centuries to overcome. And how can you blame the minorities for fighting for legal equality? Had you been the one who was deprived of the same legal rights enjoyed by other people, do you think you would be as patient?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Discrimination born out of animus is a legitimate government purpose? I certainly didn't know that!

I grow tired of your legal idiocy. Getting people to take marriage seriously is a legitimate government purpose.

Sigh... the point of bringing up the arguments of the plaintiffs is that the case is showing that "Getting people to take marriage seriously" is a totally contrived lie! If the justices do not buy the idea that Proposition 8 was designed to "get people to take marriage seriously", then it serves no purpose other than to discriminate against gays!

That was a court case brought about by Equality California and Jerry Brown. I don't know how the majority of gays have anything to do with how large advocacy organizations file their court cases.

Uh... Jerry Brown was acting as the Attorney General at the time; you can't hide behind the "he wasn't me" argument because he certainly was representing all Californians when he brought that moronic suit. But in any case, what's your point?

I don't know what your point even is! You're the one bitching about how it was the gays' fault that your taxpayer money is being used in frivolous lawsuits. My question is what do the majority of gay people even have to do with what Jerry Brown does??

My statement is that you cannot cite bullshit legal arguments filed by bullshit plaintiffs and pretend that their arguments are unassailable when they're obviously not. There is self-evidently a legitimate government purpose involved, and Fourteenth Amendment provides no protection from that for groups whose treatment falls under rational basis review.

You sound like you're convinced that prop 8 DOES have a legitimate government purpose.

In respect to prop 8's legality, I disagree. But in regards to some of my statements, I think I deserve to be able to vent a bit on the topic considering I'm the one who got short-ended here last year.

Fine, but don't run around whinging that the big bad court system is soooo biased against you when there are, at minimum, very powerful legal arguments that can be made against your case and which you don't understand because you haven't bothered to research the actual legal standards involved.

God! My point about the impartiality of SCOTUS is that the legal arguments defending proposition 8's purpose are filled with dumbshit justifications! Even the current presiding judge over the federal case questioned what real, legitimate government purpose proposition 8 fulfills. Despite the fact that the so-called legitimate purposes are so fucking brain-dead, the conservative justices can simply use them as excuses-ahem-justifications for upholding the law!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

To illustrate the point (in a facetious way) -

Plaintiff: Prop 8 serves no purpose other than to discriminate.
Defense: Without prop 8, God will destroy the US as it did Sodom and Gomorrah!
Plaintiff: That's a really stupid argument.
Conservative Justice: Well, it's good enough for me!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Serafine, A few points:

1. The constitution was supposed to be altered only by the concurrence of the states. Nowhere in the constitution does it require the ratification of the population of each state... Just the state legislature can choose how the ratification of Amendments takes place. In short there is no democratic power inherent in the constitution for passing constitutional amendments, just a legislature based one. So no, the framers did not, in fact, provide a mechanism for a population majority to change the constitution. They provided a mechanism for a majority of states to change the constitution with each state choosing how it would determine its vote, by itself, independently. Thus there is no inherent popular right in the American constitution to change the constitution by popular vote, it is a feature of early 20th century progressivism to make that the case instead. Therefore any kind of claim to a majority right to dictate the supreme law of the land is objectively false.

2. You will be required to prove, I trust you understand, the assertion that judges have created unenumerated rights, rather than applied the enumerated rights to specific relevant examples of the modern era when question about their applicability rose. You are not a professional judge/lawyer, too, so you will have to provide very powerful evidence that the rulings of the Supreme Court in regard to the applicability of enumerated rights in new situations has, in fact, been illegitimate and those justices are wrong whereas you are right.

[Serafine666]

How would you eliminate the problem entirely? Eliminating homophobia is like eliminating racism. These are socially and culturally ingrained prejudices that take decades if not centuries to overcome.

Well, you technically cannot eliminate it entirely but you can smack it down to the level that racism currently occupies: socially unacceptable with no actual political power.

And how can you blame the minorities for fighting for legal equality? Had you been the one who was deprived of the same legal rights enjoyed by other people, do you think you would be as patient?

...OK, I'm not sure how that came up but I do not blame them for making a fight of it. My genial attitude towards the issue may have been poisoned by the post-8 reaction and I may not hold quite the expansive view of legal rights that you're talking about but I don't blame gays for doing what they can to dismantle inequality codified in law.

[Serafine666]

Serafine, A few points:

1. The constitution was supposed to be altered only by the concurrence of the states. Nowhere in the constitution does it require the ratification of the population of each state... Just the state legislature can choose how the ratification of Amendments takes place. In short there is no democratic power inherent in the Constitution for passing constitutional amendments, just a legislature based one. So no, the framers did not, in fact, provide a mechanism for a population majority to change the constitution. They provided a mechanism for a majority of states to change the constitution with each state choosing how it would determine its vote, by itself, independently. Thus there is no inherent popular right in the American constitution to change the constitution by popular vote, it is a feature of early 20th century progressivism to make that the case instead. Therefore any kind of claim to a majority right to dictate the supreme law of the land is objectively false.

Well, Your Highness, I meant it more in a roundabout manner. State legislatures are elected by a majority vote of the people of their state to act as the legal representatives of that majority. These legal representatives, elected by a majority, either agree or refuse to ratify a constitutional amendment generally by a majority vote within the legislature. A supreme majority (my term for the 3/4 requirement as opposed to "super majority" which is 2/3) of these states is required for ratification and I believe that in both houses of Congress (both of which are presently directly elected by a majority vote of the people in their state), a super majority is required to send it to the states. So essentially, at all levels, there is the operation of a majority in order to ratify the amendment although the people do not directly ratify it themselves.

2. You will be required to prove, I trust you understand, the assertion that judges have created unenumerated rights, rather than applied the enumerated rights to specific relevant examples of the modern era when question about their applicability rose. You are not a professional judge/lawyer, too, so you will have to provide very powerful evidence that the rulings of the Supreme Court in regard to the applicability of enumerated rights in new situations has, in fact, been illegitimate and those justices are wrong whereas you are right.

Well, first off, what do you regard as an enumerated right? I define it as those rights directly and specifically stated in the text of the Constitution and call any right that is not "unenumerated." I have ever intention of trying to prove my case (although I'm not sure whether this thread or another would be more appropriate for such a debate) but first, I think a definition of terms would make sure we're both agreed on what I'm trying to prove.

[Master of Ossus]

Sigh... the point of bringing up the arguments of the plaintiffs is that the case is showing that "Getting people to take marriage seriously" is a totally contrived lie! If the justices do not buy the idea that Proposition 8 was designed to "get people to take marriage seriously", then it serves no purpose other than to discriminate against gays!

Yes, if you totally ignore all of the legitimate purposes that obviously exist then we are left with no legitimate purposes! What a brilliant example of the legal craft you are.

I don't know what your point even is! You're the one bitching about how it was the gays' fault that your taxpayer money is being used in frivolous lawsuits. My question is what do the majority of gay people even have to do with what Jerry Brown does??

Oh, come on. All of this nonsense was instigated by Gavin Newsome and his ilk stirring the pot and creating this whole situation in the first place, and you know it. Further, you can't possibly argue that there was no public pressure brought by gay groups to encourage Brown to file this lawsuit, and there was support of his ridiculous arguments.

You sound like you're convinced that prop 8 DOES have a legitimate government purpose.

It absolutely does, sufficient to survive a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. I have named at least one.

God! My point about the impartiality of SCOTUS is that the legal arguments defending proposition 8's purpose are filled with dumbshit justifications! Even the current presiding judge over the federal case questioned what real, legitimate government purpose proposition 8 fulfills. Despite the fact that the so-called legitimate purposes are so fucking brain-dead, the conservative justices can simply use them as excuses-ahem-justifications for upholding the law!

Yeah, because they are legitimate for the purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the law.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I grow tired of your legal idiocy. Getting people to take marriage seriously is a legitimate government purpose.

And how exactly does preventing gay people from marrying make it so people take marriage seriously?

That basis has no legitimacy in this little place we call "reality"

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Sigh... the point of bringing up the arguments of the plaintiffs is that the case is showing that "Getting people to take marriage seriously" is a totally contrived lie! If the justices do not buy the idea that Proposition 8 was designed to "get people to take marriage seriously", then it serves no purpose other than to discriminate against gays!

Yes, if you totally ignore all of the legitimate purposes that obviously exist then we are left with no legitimate purposes! What a brilliant example of the legal craft you are.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the assumption that we had a common understanding that the anti-marriage arguments were clearly, blatant lies used to persuade a dimwitted populace to take away the rights of minorities. I didn't know you actually took any of their bullshit seriously. This certainly explains your responses. I can only hope the justices aren't as susceptible to their lies as you are.

I don't know what your point even is! You're the one bitching about how it was the gays' fault that your taxpayer money is being used in frivolous lawsuits. My question is what do the majority of gay people even have to do with what Jerry Brown does??

Oh, come on. All of this nonsense was instigated by Gavin Newsome and his ilk stirring the pot and creating this whole situation in the first place, and you know it. Further, you can't possibly argue that there was no public pressure brought by gay groups to encourage Brown to file this lawsuit, and there was support of his ridiculous arguments.

What the fuck? All this nonsense was instigated right wing groups that fucking poured millions of dollars into getting this proposition qualified and getting it to the attention of ignorant voters! I can't believe you're actually blaming Gavin Newsom for the creation of proposition 8. What's next? Gays are to blame for prop 8 because they achieved marriage equality? Jesus fucking Christ.

And furthermore, where is your evidence that Brown's decision to file his lawsuit was prompted by gay rights groups? And where is your evidence that the major gay rights groups (EQCA) are even representative of the larger LGBT community? Your blanket generalization that it was the gays (who exactly are "the gays" anyways?) that drove Brown's lawsuit is as ridiculous as it is insulting.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Sigh... the point of bringing up the arguments of the plaintiffs is that the case is showing that "Getting people to take marriage seriously" is a totally contrived lie! If the justices do not buy the idea that Proposition 8 was designed to "get people to take marriage seriously", then it serves no purpose other than to discriminate against gays!

Yes, if you totally ignore all of the legitimate purposes that obviously exist then we are left with no legitimate purposes!

NO such purposes exist, obviously or otherwise. It's pure anti-homosexual bigotry, and absolutely nothing else. The claim that banning people from marriage, and using marriage rights as a weapon for indulging bigotry will make people take marriage more seriously is ridiculous.

If instead it was interracial marriages being banned, would you make the same excuses?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If instead it was interracial marriages being banned, would you make the same excuses?

Of course he wouldn't. I think i know the reason why he accepts it for gay people...Houston, we have cryptobigot

His argument it seems has alternated between "arguments not valid for interracial couples do in fact apply to gays...somehow" and "This would never have happened if the gays had not been uppity. So long as they stayed in their place and didnt make such a big fuss about wanting to be treated like human beings, this never would have happened and they only have themselves to blame"

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Under US federal law, both race and sexual orientation are considered suspect class with the former defined under strict scrutiny and the latter under rational basis (Strict scrutiny has more weight than rational basis). Race as a suspect class is codified in the US Constitution, federal law, and in court precedent whereas sexual orientation exists as a suspect class only in court precedent. The logic goes that the legality of proposition 8 is determined by the level of suspect classification of sexual orientation and the validity of any legitimate state interest in banning marriage for same-sex couples. Because the suspect classification of sexual orientation is only that of rational basis, then any legitimate state interest produced by the law would supersede the marriage rights for people of differing sexual orientation. However, since the suspect classification for race is that of strict scrutiny, there's virtually very little in getting in the way of the 14th amendment ensuring equal protection for people of differing races.

That said, the idea that proposition 8 as a law produces any legitimate state purpose is ludicrous. The sole and original intention of proposition 8 is pure discrimination and animus. If such a case can be made and the justices are convinced that no other state purpose exists for the law, then it's possible for proposition 8 to be struck down as unconstitutional. Ossus, apparently, believes otherwise that there is a valid legitimate state purpose of the law, which is essentially the regurgitation of the anti-gay folk's bullshit on "protecting marriage". As idiotic as the arguments for those state purposes are, it's possible (if not likely) that the justices on the supreme court may simply accept any one of those arguments as a justification to deny same sex couples their right to marry. Whether they do it out of ignorance, dishonesty, bigotry or a combination of the aforementioned reasons is irrelevant. That is why I have little trust in SCOTUS evaluating proposition 8 with an impartial understanding.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That is why I have little trust in SCOTUS evaluating proposition 8 with an impartial understanding.

hence my prior comments regarding needing to wait for Scalia and his pet Thomas to die. However that is the same for everything. Technically speaking the SCOTUS if it so wanted to make rulings that fly in the face of our understanding of federal law. The fact remains though that no rational basis exists for denying gay people equal treatment.

From my understanding of the law at least, a "rational basis" is very similar to a "reasonable person" in the way it is handled. The decision is based upon an informed rational actor.

[Serafine666]

Hence my prior comments regarding needing to wait for Scalia and his pet Thomas to die.

Yanno, Alyrium, even though I am quite certain that you're not a bigot, calling the court's lone black justice the "pet" of one of the white justices almost begs for some sort of commentary. I completely understand what you're saying and everyone else probably does too but still... "Scalia and his pet Thomas"...

C'mon... think of how you might react if you read a comment from some conservative (heck, use me as an example) calling a prominent black the "pet" of a particular white man. That doesn't seem like the best way to express your impression that Thomas just echoes whatever Scalia thinks.

[Lusankya]

Why does the majority have any intrinsic "right" to determine anything? The majority are semi-literate morons who simplify their understanding of the political process into the equivalent of supporting a football team. Most of them can't even make intelligent decisions regarding their own lives, let alone regarding the well-being of a nation.

Sort of by process of elimination. Either a majority can determine something or a minority can. There doesn't seem to be any logic at all in "the minority is the only folks who can decide what their rights are" because that implies no controlling mechanism. At least, as others have pointed out, there is a controlling mechanism on what the majority may do.

You are assuming there is no controlling mechanism: if only people who'd had works published in peer-reviewed journals could vote for leaders, I would consider that an improvement to our current democracy, because it would eliminate the morons. The problem then comes with securing the integrity of peer reviewed journals in such a case, but that's not necessarily any harder than the current problem of uneducated stupid people being manipulated into making uneducated stupid decisions.

[Highlord Laan]

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?

Because since a law requiring the equal treatment of homosexuals under the law is pretty cut and dry, social acceptance is completely skipped over in favor of ramming equality down the throats of people that think they deserve preferential treatment.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Hence my prior comments regarding needing to wait for Scalia and his pet Thomas to die.

Yanno, Alyrium, even though I am quite certain that you're not a bigot, calling the court's lone black justice the "pet" of one of the white justices almost begs for some sort of commentary.

Alright, Thomas is Scalia's Renfield then. Or possibly his Torgo.

[Andrew J.]

It absolutely does, sufficient to survive a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. I have named at least one.

You have named it, indeed. Proposition 8 purportedly means to make people take marriage seriously. However, you have not proved that Proposition 8 fulfills that purpose, as the government of California will have to.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hence my prior comments regarding needing to wait for Scalia and his pet Thomas to die.

Yanno, Alyrium, even though I am quite certain that you're not a bigot, calling the court's lone black justice the "pet" of one of the white justices almost begs for some sort of commentary. I completely understand what you're saying and everyone else probably does too but still... "Scalia and his pet Thomas"...

C'mon... think of how you might react if you read a comment from some conservative (heck, use me as an example) calling a prominent black the "pet" of a particular white man. That doesn't seem like the best way to express your impression that Thomas just echoes whatever Scalia thinks.

Thomas reflexively defers to Scalia, rules with him 90 someodd percent of the time, and rarely asks questions of those making arguments in court preferring to defer to, you guessed it, Scalia.

I would agree with you if the two individuals were unconnected or if it was merely assumed that a prominent black man was a white guy's pet just because he is black, even though they hold the same rank. However Thomas acts like Scalia's pet/sidekick/toady/retainer/feudal vassal, therefor he should be treated and referred to as such.

I will not tiptoe around the obvious implications of his behavior just because someone with no ability to connect two dots or sees racism in everything think that there is some racial overtone to something I say. To do otherwise would be to give someone special (as opposed to equal) treatment, and seeing as I am on the receiving end legal inequality I will not suffer anyone to be more equal than others.