Forum:Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TEH GHEYS CAN GET MARRIED AGAIN. OMG I STUBBED MY TOE. I BLAME GAY MARRIAGE.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,6634127.story --MJMelcher (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- The below was copied from saloon barchive #71:
A Federal District Judge has overturned California's Proposition Hate, which banned same-sex marriage. If it is appealed, we'll have courts perhaps as high as the SCOTUS deciding whether same-sex marriage bans violate the national Constitution. ħuman
22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think if it is not appealed, it could become a precedent for other similar suits elsewhere. Does a real lawyer know? ħuman 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- IANAL, but if my 12th grade government class still finds me, then you're correct on both counts. If it's not appealed, it sets precedent, if it's appealed all the way to the supreme court, and it deemed unconstitutional, then all state laws are instantly unenforceable. Fun fun!! Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can somebody remind me again why I'm supposed to care about this? Because I fail to see what all the drama over it is...--The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Er.. Gay people want to get married? I have some gay friends, and am all about supporting them. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Plus, it's always fun to see mormons waste their money. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's far, far more than just gay people want to get married - it's a symbol that same sex love is finally beginning to be accepted as equal to heterosexual love. It's about accepting the gay community as equal partners in society at large, it's about equality, it's about a whole bunch of very important stuff. We should be singing from the rooftops, whatever your sexuality. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, Jack. This was one of those there's-hope-yet moments. And for the record, human, the ban was struck down precisely because it violated the national constitution. A Supreme Court ruling would decide the standard for all states' laws. Lyra § talk 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- My cynical side is worried about a Supreme Court ruling, because I'm far from convinced the current court will uphold this ruling.
- Agreed, Jack. This was one of those there's-hope-yet moments. And for the record, human, the ban was struck down precisely because it violated the national constitution. A Supreme Court ruling would decide the standard for all states' laws. Lyra § talk 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's far, far more than just gay people want to get married - it's a symbol that same sex love is finally beginning to be accepted as equal to heterosexual love. It's about accepting the gay community as equal partners in society at large, it's about equality, it's about a whole bunch of very important stuff. We should be singing from the rooftops, whatever your sexuality. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Plus, it's always fun to see mormons waste their money. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Er.. Gay people want to get married? I have some gay friends, and am all about supporting them. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can somebody remind me again why I'm supposed to care about this? Because I fail to see what all the drama over it is...--The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- IANAL, but if my 12th grade government class still finds me, then you're correct on both counts. If it's not appealed, it sets precedent, if it's appealed all the way to the supreme court, and it deemed unconstitutional, then all state laws are instantly unenforceable. Fun fun!! Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The thing that gives me hope is that there's a clear are divide on this issue -- basically, for the under fifty crowd, the majority is in favor of gay marriage; for the over fifty crowd, the majority is opposed. Even taking into account the general tendency to become more conservative as you age, I'm confident that in fifty years, most people will be amazed this was even an issue, just like people feel about inter-racial marriage now.
- In terms of its symbolism marriage is the holy grail of partnership equality. As long as you say that only heterosexual couples can marry you are implying that their relationship is, somehow, superior. Sure, you gays can have your civil partnerships but only "proper" couples can marry - that's the underlying message. Civil partnerships stink of "equal but separate" and all the other "I am not a racist but..." type get outs from the days when race was the big issue.
- As for whether it was (is) wise to aim for the holy cow of the Ken's of this world - if you don't aim for the stars you'll never get there. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's an argument to be made that "marriage" is a religious device, and thus religions can dictate who is eligible regardless. Thus, "civil partnerships" are open to all. The trouble with that is that marriage has become the word, the norm and the most acceptable form in society. If we'd always had this separation between what religious institutions promote and recognise and what the government promotes and recognises, then there wouldn't be a problem; same-sex couples would just say "fuck you bigots" and get civil partnerships no questions asked. But we don't have that situation, it's far more than a colloquialism in reality to call this sort of partnership a "marriage", so it's a case where the terminology actually does have a strong effect. I'd be very interested in thoughts regarding whether it was a strategic mistake (if there's any "strategy" involved at all, but I see what you mean), but I certainly don't think it was a mistake because this is all about social acceptance of a right (calling it marriage), rather than a right as a perfectly fine, legal and proper technicality (as in, the exact same rights and legal procedures, but being forced to call it something else).
narchist 15:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I tend to view it the opposite way. That "Marriage" is a purely social construct. It's really just a matter of what the term means to each person. I've certainly had people argue that allowing gays to wed would "force" churches to perform the ceremony. Which is just ludicrous. I really don't see the issue, if a church doesn't want to perform a ceremony, no one forces them to. They're allowed to turn straight couples away. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The question in my mind is, if this fails at the supreme court level, what are the implications for 14th amendment rights? The legal content of this ruling is the blood and guts of contemporary civil rights law, including Roe v. Wade; at the very least, the pro-life movement will take notice. I think?WilhelmJunker (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Social construct" I'm never impressed by that, and I've seen many people just use it as a fancy term for "I'm just going to dismiss it because I have pretensions over you" (not that I'm accusing anyone directly of this, but sociologists, and groups like many hardcore feminists do it all the time) - I hate to point out the obvious, but we're social creatures and live for social "constructs". They are kind of ingrained on us and are very important and very real to us. They're not easily dismissed in such a way. narchist 11:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume that's to me, as we're the only one's talking about social constructs. I want to be clear then, that that is nowhere near what I mean. I mean it in the same way that money is a social construct, or government, or voting, or jobs. I view it (marriage) as a social construct as opposed to a religious construct. I think social constructs are what keep society functioning. They grease the wheels to make it more tolerable to give up rights for the betterment of the group. I in no way meant to denigrate social constructs. I <3 social constructs. It's the religious one's that piss me off. (and religion is a social construct.. so then it gets a bit funky.) I may not be explaining myself well. Lack of sleep, and a screaming baby make it tough sometimes.. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I misunderstood there. It appears that I'm a bit jaded by philosophy students. narchist 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marriage is also a huge legal construct, which civil union laws confer on people who aren't allowed to "marry". By the way, someone started a forum on this a couple days ago and it's not active. Should we move this section to it? ħuman 21:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We should. The forum needs every infusion of life it can get.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm in Cal and I didn't know about this. ~ Lumenos 05:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Calling marriage a religious concept is like saying Christmas is religious. It may have begun that way just because it gets packaged with "religion" when everyone was religious. It has a legal function. It defines people as family, who are not blood relatives. This has implications in family law. Civil unions might function the same way but I don't know if some organizations ("religious" hospitals, etc) have laws that treat married couples differently than civil unions. I think that is the issue.
- So how different could marriage become? I would go so far as to support the concept of group "marriage", as in large polyfidelious sex networks where everyone agrees to only have sex within the group and no one gets in without being tested for all STDs. But this probably shouldn't be called "marriage" because it wouldn't work in terms of marriage law. For smaller groups it probably could work. ~ Lumenos 05:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- where everyone agrees to only have sex within the group -- would this be legally binding? ONE / TALK 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Every sex network has its own sex rules and enforcement rules. Those who are caught cheating may be kicked out or fined within most jurisdictions. It would be interesting to see if more severe reconciliations could be legally adopted, such as enslavement or death penalty (organ harvesting), and to see if people would still break the rules. Another technique to minimize proliferation of STDs would be to require that everyone enter into a database, who they are about to have sex with. This would provide a record of sex reputations, help track down the sources of infection, and let people know if they need to be tested again. I'd like to learn how to do many medical tests, both for humans and livestock. Maybe some could be done with inexpensive equipment such as a microscope. Vaccines now exist for carcinogenic HPV and herpes. The religious right is opposing plans to vaccinate teenagers, on the grounds that it undermines their abstinence-only rule. ~ Lumenos 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (ETA bold/bracketed text ~ Lumenos 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC))
- where everyone agrees to only have sex within the group -- would this be legally binding? ONE / TALK 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- We should. The forum needs every infusion of life it can get.
- Marriage is also a huge legal construct, which civil union laws confer on people who aren't allowed to "marry". By the way, someone started a forum on this a couple days ago and it's not active. Should we move this section to it? ħuman
- Ah, I see. I misunderstood there. It appears that I'm a bit jaded by philosophy students.
- I assume that's to me, as we're the only one's talking about social constructs. I want to be clear then, that that is nowhere near what I mean. I mean it in the same way that money is a social construct, or government, or voting, or jobs. I view it (marriage) as a social construct as opposed to a religious construct. I think social constructs are what keep society functioning. They grease the wheels to make it more tolerable to give up rights for the betterment of the group. I in no way meant to denigrate social constructs. I <3 social constructs. It's the religious one's that piss me off. (and religion is a social construct.. so then it gets a bit funky.) I may not be explaining myself well. Lack of sleep, and a screaming baby make it tough sometimes.. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I tend to view it the opposite way. That "Marriage" is a purely social construct. It's really just a matter of what the term means to each person. I've certainly had people argue that allowing gays to wed would "force" churches to perform the ceremony. Which is just ludicrous. I really don't see the issue, if a church doesn't want to perform a ceremony, no one forces them to. They're allowed to turn straight couples away. Quarucommunist - You can't explain that! 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's an argument to be made that "marriage" is a religious device, and thus religions can dictate who is eligible regardless. Thus, "civil partnerships" are open to all. The trouble with that is that marriage has become the word, the norm and the most acceptable form in society. If we'd always had this separation between what religious institutions promote and recognise and what the government promotes and recognises, then there wouldn't be a problem; same-sex couples would just say "fuck you bigots" and get civil partnerships no questions asked. But we don't have that situation, it's far more than a colloquialism in reality to call this sort of partnership a "marriage", so it's a case where the terminology actually does have a strong effect. I'd be very interested in thoughts regarding whether it was a strategic mistake (if there's any "strategy" involved at all, but I see what you mean), but I certainly don't think it was a mistake because this is all about social acceptance of a right (calling it marriage), rather than a right as a perfectly fine, legal and proper technicality (as in, the exact same rights and legal procedures, but being forced to call it something else).
- As for whether it was (is) wise to aim for the holy cow of the Ken's of this world - if you don't aim for the stars you'll never get there. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)