California Supreme Court Overturns Voter Approved Same Sex Marriage Ban

[Autodidact]

The point is the CA Constitution is silent on the issue. When the constitution is silent on an issue you make a law via the legislature or referendum. Judges are not supposed to "write in" imaginary language to the supreme law of the state. If all a constitution is good for is one's opinion of how it should be, then use it for toilet paper. That is all it is good for.

The holding is that denying marriage to gay people violates this provision of the California constitution:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

What is your argument that it does not?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., I'll answer my own question. I think the argument would be that the privilege of marriage is being granted on the same precise terms to all citizens: Any citizen can marry a citizen of the opposite sex. Therefore there is no unconstitutional discrimination. What say you, same-sex marriage proponents?

 

[lilithu]

O.K., I'll answer my own question. I think the argument would be that the privilege of marriage is being granted on the same precise terms to all citizens: Any citizen can marry a citizen of the opposite sex. Therefore there is no unconstitutional discrimination. What say you, same-sex marriage proponents?

That would be like saying:
The privilege of marriage is being granted on the same precise terms to all citizens: Any citizen can marry a citizen of the same race. Therefore there is no unconstitutional discrimination.

:areyoucra

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

O.K., I'll answer my own question. I think the argument would be that the privilege of marriage is being granted on the same precise terms to all citizens: Any citizen can marry a citizen of the opposite sex. Therefore there is no unconstitutional discrimination. What say you, same-sex marriage proponents?

If I may, madam Devil's Advocate...

Without allowance for same-sex marriage, marriage to men is a privilege only granted to women, and marriage to women is a privilege only granted to men. For the same privilege to be granted to all classes of citizens on equal terms, men and women would have to have the privilege of being able to marry men, and men and women would have to have the privilege of being able to marry women.

 

[lilithu]

Both the anti-miscegenation laws of the last century and the anti-same-sex marriage laws of today are rooted in suppositions of inequality. For the anti-miscegenation laws, the belief was that some races were superior and some inferior, and you didn't want intermarrying to mess up the superiority of the white race. For the anti-same-sex marriage laws the presupposition is that men are the heads of the house (superior) and women are the helpmeets (inferior), and a marriage functions by people knowing their roles. If you have two men getting married, who is going to be the helpmeet? If you have two women getting married, who is going to be the head of the house? Oh no!

If we truly believed that people of all races and genders were equal, marriage would be a partnership between two loving adults, and the composition of the partnership would be irrelevant to everyone except the two partners themselves.

All of these oppressions - racism, sexism, and heterosexism - are related to each other. They all originate from the assumption that some people are better than others.

 

[zippythepinhead]

Both the anti-miscegenation laws of the last century and the anti-same-sex marriage laws of today are rooted in suppositions of inequality. For the anti-miscegenation laws, the belief was that some races were superior and some inferior, and you didn't want intermarrying to mess up the superiority of the white race. For the anti-same-sex marriage laws the presupposition is that men are the heads of the house (superior) and women are the helpmeets (inferior), and a marriage functions by people knowing their roles. If you have two men getting married, who is going to be the helpmeet? If you have two women getting married, who is going to be the head of the house? Oh no!

If we truly believed that people of all races and genders were equal, marriage would be a partnership between two loving adults, and the composition of the partnership would be irrelevant to everyone except the two partners themselves.

All of these oppressions - racism, sexism, and heterosexism - are related to each other. They all originate from the assumption that some people are better than others.

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

 

[McBell]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Just remember there are some heteros that think they are better than the gays, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be saved.:slap:

Yep, sounds just as ridiculous this way too.

 

[Mike182]

Just remember there are some heteros that think they are better than the gays, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be saved.:slap:

Yep, sounds just as ridiculous this way too.

erm, don't you need to change far right to far left for that to make sense? :run:

 

[Smoke]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Don't be silly. We don't think we're better than heterosexuals, just the fascist right wing nut jobs who think their personal prejudices ought to have the force of law -- and they turn out, every so often, to include closeted homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

 

[lilithu]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Well, when they start trying to make it illegal for you to get married, then we can talk.

 

[McBell]

erm, don't you need to change far right to far left for that to make sense? :run:

nag nag nag

 

[Mike182]

nag nag nag

poke poke poke :rainbow1:

 

[Autodidact]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Really? Can you give an example of a gay person here at RF who has said that they are morally superior to heterosexuals?

Unlike, say, Christians, who say things like this frequently.

 

[Autodidact]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Are you sure you're not confusing "heterosexuals" with "bigots"? Because they're not the same thing.

 

[Draka]

Are you sure you're not confusing "heterosexuals" with "bigots"? Because they're not the same thing.

No, no they're not. Heteros do not equal "fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued". That label should read more like bigoted jackasses who like to ram their own ideas of right and wrong down others throats. That sounds more like it to me.

 

[lilithu]

nag nag nag

poke poke poke :rainbow1:

Don't know why but this exchange made me want to hug you both. But since my arms aren't long enough, you'll have to settle for frubals.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

As a devoutly heterosexual male that has dated bisexual women and has known many gay men, I have to say that I don't believe that I have ever met a homosexual person (of either gender) that felt morally superior to heterosexuals. Unless, of course, they were actually morally superior (as is often the case when comparing oneself to hypocrites). Note that I am not saying that all heterosexuals are hypocritical, but when you see the likes of Larry Craig and Mark Foley - well - it's awfully hard not to feel morally superior.

 

[zippythepinhead]

Just remember there are some heteros that think they are better than the gays, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be saved.:slap:

Yep, sounds just as ridiculous this way too.

Touchee!:angel2:

 

[Magic Man]

Touchee!:angel2:

You're a female now!?

(sorry, I couldn't resist. The double "e" at the end of "touchee" implies femininity, whereas "touche" is the male version. )

 

[DeepShadow]

Just remember there are some gays that think they are better than the heteros, because they know what is morally right and the rest of us who disagree with them are fascist right wing nut jobs who need to be sued.:slap:

Sure, there are some bigoted gays, just like there are bigoted Wiccans, bigoted Mormons, bigoted Catholics, or bigoted Buddhists. In the words of Larry Niven, there is no demographic of significant size that you can't find idiots in.

Judging a group by the lowest common denominator this way is poor reasoning, and detrimental to a genuine discussion.