Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
Options
Comments
-
I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.
Call me crazy, Jakkass, but I don't think people's rights should be subject to a majority vote. The great unwashed masses shouldn't be able to decide what rights people have, IMO. Incidentally, that's why I dislike having referendums on issues like abortion, but that's another thread...
Anyway, s someone posted earlier, a majority in the Deep South back in the 1960s would probably have voted in favour of keeping racial segregation, for example, and surely you agree that that shouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of the majority"?0 -
I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power.
Judicial activism is something I have a distinct dislike for, and have had a dislike for ever since I studied about it when I took politics at university. I think the vote of the people is the best way to make significant changes to relationship and family structures. It rings more of aristocracy rather than democracy.
That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.
It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.
On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.Having said that, even though I oppose altering marriage, I would have respected this more if the people of California voted for this rather than having it imposed top down by a judge, who in this case could be argued to be biased in his judgement.
Find me someone who's not biased.
Would he be unbiased if he was straight?
Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?
Despite his sexual orientation he has actually ruled against gay plaintiffs on issues in the past - in fact, his original appointment to the bench was challenged by Democrats on the grounds that he was 'insensitive to gays and the poor'.
Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.0 -
It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages.
Do you consider civil partnership equal to marriage?
If not, why should LGBT couples not have the right to an equal "formal" relationship?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Call me crazy, Jakkass, but I don't think people's rights should be subject to a majority vote. The great unwashed masses shouldn't be able to decide what rights people have, IMO. Incidentally, that's why I dislike having referendums on issues like abortion, but that's another thread...
I don't believe that essential legislation that changes the way of life for an entire State, or country should be imposed by a set of judge, or in some cases a single judge.
I think that the status of the referendum in altering our constitution in Ireland is perhaps one of the best things about it. We decide what our country should stand for, and what it shouldn't.
I think the Swiss model is considerably better though, in that it allows constituents to propose a referendum to change the constitution with 50,000 backers.Anyway, s someone posted earlier, a majority in the Deep South back in the 1960s would probably have voted in favour of keeping racial segregation, for example, and surely you agree that that shouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of the majority"?
This assumes that sexuality is biologically determined in the same way that race is. I wouldn't hold to that assumption personally.LookingFor wrote: »That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.
If you wish to chuckle that's up to you. As for me, I'm going to try respect everyone all around and have a good discussion!LookingFor wrote: »It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.
See what I said about the merits of other systems to argonaut.LookingFor wrote: »On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.
Interesting that you say this. I'm suspecting it is because the Constitution is unclear in respect to the prospect of legalising gay marriage, pretty much along the same reasoning that our own Constitution is unclear on it. In the case of our judges they ruled that because Eamon DeValera wasn't thinking that way in 1937 that it was probably his intention to define marriage between a man and a woman.
I'll have to read more about what sections of the US Constitution he used to justify his position.LookingFor wrote: »Find me someone who's not biased.
Would he be unbiased if he was straight?
Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?
That's the problem with judicial activism. Judges can be completely out of touch with the actual electorate, whereas the electorate can give the broader opinion as to what their society really wants.
If society in California wants to keep the traditional definition of marriage, then I think that's worthy of being respected, particularly when people of LGBT orientation can formalise their relationships in civil unions.LookingFor wrote: »Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.
I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but I'm still a little bit suspicious at the whole thing to be honest with you.
Mike 1972: Good point.0 -
-
doesn't matter if it's that extreme or not, would you support something as long as the majority are in favour of it?
Of course it matters! It would be completely taking something out of context otherwise. I'll entertain it briefly though.
I would recognise that it was a democratic decision, but in that case I would probably end up violating such a law, personally.
I think marriage and family structures are hugely important, and that's why I support the people of California making a decision rather than judges. If the people of California changed this for themselves, I personally would regard that as their decision. A decision I would personally disagree with, but none the less an entirely democratic decision.0 -
The gays in California have just scored probably the biggest own goal in their campaign thus far. The judge who just overturned this is hemself gay and this clearly violates the democratic will of the Californian people. The minority will never unsurp the majority and Cali is nowhere near as liberal people are lead to beleive.
This will plank the issue firmly on the November agenda and it will be squashed firmly by the Latino and Black vote allied strongly with the conservative white vote. No gay judge will decide what is legal and what is not and the rule of majority is what counts or else there is no rule at all.
Thank goodness we have a clear cut way of doing things in this country and have an entire system in place to make sure political f*ck ups like this does not happen.0 -
Up de Barrs wrote: »It would be a great outcome if the US supreme court was to rule that same sex couples had an equal right to marry. The supreme court currently has a conservative majority but if President Obama gets to make appointment a liberal it may tip the balance.
That would be great, but I'd imagine it's very unlikely to happen. Also, Obama has already appointed a Supreme Court Justice... and is about to appoint another. He has nominated Elena Kagan, and the Senate is expected to vote on her nomination today (Thursday). So that would be two appointments that he has made.It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages. If the people of California felt that was best in a referendum, that should be respected. That's their prerogative, and if the people of California wish to change that they should do it themselves via referendum rather than have it imposed by a judge.
A majority vote in one state is not enough to change the constitution. The judge ruled the law is unconstitutional. Not that he just didn't like it. The US Constitution trumps state law, by a long shot.0 -
Advertisement
-
See what I said about the merits of other systems to argonaut.
You can keep saying that 'with certain stuff the people should be supreme' but that continues to ignore the presence of a constitution or charter of rights or whatever other set of fundamentals a country is founded on.
I don't want to repeat others' points, but if we were to go with the kind of system of direct democracy you are advocating, the mob would go unchecked, things like constitutions just go out the window. They're pointless in that context. Think of the major civil liberties breakthroughs of the last 100 or so years and consider if they'd even have happened under such a system.
As for how the constitution can be changed, that's another matter. I know it can be amended in the States, but the argument for making it easier or more difficult to change is a fraught one.Interesting that you say this. I'm suspecting it is because the Constitution is unclear in respect to the prospect of legalising gay marriage, pretty much along the same reasoning that our own Constitution is unclear on it. In the case of our judges they ruled that because Eamon DeValera wasn't thinking that way in 1937 that it was probably his intention to define marriage between a man and a woman.
I'll have to read more about what sections of the US Constitution he used to justify his position.
There's nothing in the US constitution, currently, that bars gay marriage, and clauses re. marriage didn't enter into this as a result.
Of course, you can and should read for yourself, but in short this ruling was made under the equal protection and due process clauses.0 -
The gays in California have just scored probably the biggest own goal in their campaign thus far. The judge who just overturned this is hemself gay and this clearly violates the democratic will of the Californian people.
And the democratic will of the people violated the constitution, which is fundamental.
So, the constitution prevents you from voting to strip others of their civil rights? Boo-frickin'-hoo, world's smallest violin over here please :rolleyes:0 -
LookingFor wrote: »You can keep saying that 'with certain stuff the people should be supreme' but that continues to ignore the presence of a constitution or charter of rights or whatever other set of fundamentals a country is founded on.
I've not argued once for ignoring the Constitution. I would like to see this go to the Supreme Court and have them rule on it.LookingFor wrote: »I don't want to repeat others' points, but if we were to go with the kind of system of direct democracy you are advocating, the mob would go unchecked, things like constitutions just go out the window. They're pointless in that context. Think of the major civil liberties breakthroughs of the last 100 or so years and consider if they'd even have happened under such a system.
Having restrictions on how much the Constitution can be altered, or having a set requirement of supporters like in Switzerland should do the trick. Ultimately there will have to be some form of judiciary to interpret the Constitution, but adding or removing articles should be down to the people. It is the people who define the character of the country.
I would argue that any change in terms of civil liberties should be reasonably thought through, that such changes would not impede the rights or liberties that people currently have, and that it would have popular support. It's probably a conservative view of how liberties should be added.LookingFor wrote: »There's nothing in the US constitution, currently, that bars gay marriage, and clauses re. marriage didn't enter into this as a result.
There is nothing that explicitly mentions that it is a right either?LookingFor wrote: »Of course, you can and should read for yourself, but in short this ruling was made under the equal protection and due process clauses.
I aim to.0 -
Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard0
-
LookingFor wrote: »And the democratic will of the people violated the constitution, which is fundamental.
So, the constitution prevents you from voting to strip others of their civil rights? Boo-frickin'-hoo, world's smallest violin over here please :rolleyes:
The people will always trump any constitution and civil rights also. Gay Marriage does not come into civil rights, we don't hear pedophiles arguing for under age sex to be legalised, just because they think it should be doesn't mean it should, similarly with gay marriage.
The people in California fighting for gay marriage have really damaged their cause with this and what they have done is akin to getting a referee from their side to ref the political match. The people of California have voted that they do not want gay marriage or the gay agenda and all these gay extremists have done is help alienate gay people when the status quo was working nicely.
This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term. Just because something is legal somewhere else does not mean that this is ok in every jurisdiction. In Germany parts of the Autobahn has no speed limit, this does not mean Ireland should have or that it would work here. Different strokes for different folks.0 -
-
Matthewthebig wrote: »Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard
Despite the fact that I have pointed out, that if the people of California had voted to legalise gay marriage, I would regard it as their democratic decision to have done so?
Or indeed, that I support civil partnership?
Very funny logic there, I must say :pac:0 -
Shocking that the fundie cúnt is the one who comes against it. I bet you wouldn't object to creationism being brought into school teaching this way.Despite the fact that I have pointed out, that if the people of California had voted to legalise gay marriage, I would regard it as their democratic decision to have done so?
Or indeed, that I support civil partnership?
Very funny logic there, I must say :pac:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yeah what an extreme position it is to fight for equal rights. The cheek of the gheys. Also dont mention pedophilia and then say similarly with gay marriage. You're making yourself look like an idiot.The people will always trump any constitution and civil rights also. Gay Marriage does not come into civil rights, we don't hear pedophiles arguing for under age sex to be legalised, just because they think it should be doesn't mean it should, similarly with gay marriage.
The people in California fighting for gay marriage have really damaged their cause with this and what they have done is akin to getting a referee from their side to ref the political match. The people of California have voted that they do not want gay marriage or the gay agenda and all these gay extremists have done is help alienate gay people when the status quo was working nicely.
This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term. Just because something is legal somewhere else does not mean that this is ok in every jurisdiction. In Germany parts of the Autobahn has no speed limit, this does not mean Ireland should have or that it would work here. Different strokes for different folks.0 -
This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term.
Only from people like you. Equating gay marriage with pedophilia? Classy. (By the way, not to backseat mod, but your post is extremely offensive). As for the judge in this case, all you have engaged in are ad hominem attacks rather than rationally explaining why you think he was wrong.
Anyway, the judgment goes into much detail around Prop 8, the campaigns and the vote, and was not silent on why the vote does not stand, not simply based on his judgment, but on precedent.The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See background to Proposition 8 above. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licences. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code". "Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest" has never been a rational basis for legislation. Tradition alone cannot support legislation.Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, theri claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to compelling government interest.
Because the government defendants declined to advance such arguments, proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a compelling California interest in Proposition 8.
As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by the plaintiffs' due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by the proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Propostion 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny.
These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?0 -
scientific1982 wrote: »Yeah what an extreme position it is to fight for equal rights. The cheek of the gheys. Also dont mention pedophilia and then say similarly with gay marriage. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.
Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?0 -
LookingFor wrote: »These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?
It is a good question, but the question largely revolves around the assumption that marriage was always broader than a structured relationship between a man and a woman and the basis for a family unit.
I think I would be quite adamant that already existing rights should be defended quite staunchly, but when new rights are being created we need to start thinking about whether or not it is profitable overall for our society to do so.
That's a a valid concern, even if you do hold it with disdain personally.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »Only from people like you. Equating gay marriage with pedophilia? Classy. (By the way, not to backseat mod, but your post is extremely offensive). As for the judge in this case, all you have engaged in are ad hominem attacks rather than rationally explaining why you think he was wrong.
Anyway, the judgment goes into much detail around Prop 8, the campaigns and the vote, and was not silent on why the vote does not stand, not simply based on his judgment, but on precedent.
These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?
I am not equating Gay Marriage with Pedophillia, however if there were enough pedophiles in the world should it be a civil rights issue and should the Heterosexual have to accept it if they had voted against it?
Making a democratic decision is most important, Ireland voted No to Lisbon and then secondly Yes. We accepted this and got on with life. I am a believer in rights for gay people and an end to discrimination but granting gay marriage is something that crosses a line as it is something firmly between a man and woman. Equality yes but not at the expense of the masses or the sanctity of marriage.0 -
Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.
Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?
You're trotting out stale arguments that have long since been addressed.
Marriage in this context is a civil matter.
Homosexual couples are biologically equivalent to the many reproductively incapable heterosexual couples who are perfectly able to marry. Homosexual couples are capable to having children and are having children.
Marriage is not exclusively designed to support child rearing.
Pedophilia is a crime. It is rape. You are talking about non-consensual sex between an adult and a child. It is completely inequivalent to relationships between adults and always will be. That is the difference. It is extremely offensive to compare the two.
You seem to have not paid any attention to the arguments - or in this case, the judgment - you so vehemently argue against.0 -
Homosexual couples cant produce children, what a shocker. The reason pedophilia is illegal is because it causes profound lifelong suffering to one of the parties, not because there are a small minority of pedophiles.Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.
Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Until quite recently in history mental illnesses were dealt with by either locking someone up in a mental asylum for the rest of their lives or cutting out part of their brain. In short, times change and people's understandings change. In this case, it's been, for the most part at least, for the better.Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.
Um, because paedophilia is wrong. To be honest, it says a lot about a person when they start comparing that to homosexuality.Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?0
Advertisement