Are you guys up and voting yet? Remember to vote down the horrible little pro-bigotry ballot measure, proposition 8. If you don’t believe me, read Charlie Stross’s explanation. And if that’s still not good enough for you, look who is bankrolling 8: the Knights of Columbus, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (he’s got some money left after keeping the Discovery Institute afloat, apparently), and John Templeton (not the Templeton Foundation, mind you…just the chairman and president contributing as a private individual). Isn’t that enough to tell you it must be wrong?
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I did my part… Two weeks ago. Yay, early voting.
Watched my wife scramble out of the house to vote… Why?
Let’s send 8 down in flames.
And while we’re at it, Charlie Brown for Congress. This part of California, which starts at the northeast end of metro Sac and goes up to the Oregon border, is politically similar to Wyoming… So Brown isn’t the most liberal Democrat you’ll ever meet. But he’s a good man. Much, much better than McClintock; I really dislike McClintock, who is a pure Bush republican.
Please, district 4 people, get out and vote. We need Charlie Brown.
Just voted no on 8 and Obamacized the vote.
Prop 8 is a dead heat, within the margin of error… some of the reports I’m hearing say that the Latino vote is swinging the yes vote pretty significantly. It’s sad to see that community side with the communities that dont even want them here in CA.
took me 20 minutes from entry to finish.
We have a physicist running for representative against Jane Harmon: Brian Gibson… while i like the idea of more scientists in congress, he does pull the republican party line a bit too much for my taste.
Jeez. Look in the comments, and somebody there has a link to another blog post in which are discussed some, er… troubling comments by Orson Scott Card. I’m not like a huge fan or anything (Ender’s Game was pretty cool, that’s about it), and I knew he was a Mor(m)on, but… wow. What a despicable bigot.
For once, I completely agree with Professor Myers. Proposition 8, and its counterparts in other states, is a completely pointless measure. There is no legitimate secular argument against allowing same-sex marriage. While I wasn’t keen on the original court decision (purely on legal grounds, since I can’t see any real basis for it in the California state constitution), it would be stupid to vote to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry simply in order to make a point.
We need Charlie Brown. – Wasn’t that the little bald-headed kid from Peanuts?
OK, that does it. I don’t care about the distinction between the organization and the man: I’ll starve before I accept a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
Isn’t Proposition 8 a pretty clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment?
I skipped my morning run so I could vote first thing (and I’m training for a marathon). I’m hopeful that No on 8 will carry the day, but if not, I will try to view it as a temporary setback.
I have several evangelical friends/family members, none of whom could explain to me how same-sex marriage threatens my own heterosexual marriage in any way. But somehow my marriage still needs “protecting.” Troubling and sad, but not surprising.
I have stupid on the brain. I meant Article IV of the Constitution.
It’s also being bankrolled, in a huge way, by the Mormons.
“If you’re not gonna let us marry the way we want to, the hell we’re gonna let you marry the way you want to.”
It’s not pro-bigotry! It is simply protecting the rights of us straight people. Because obviously if gay people are allowed to get married, it’s going to… um… ruin my marriage? Turn me gay? Turn my dog gay? Force me to marry my dog? Force my dog to marry gay transexual Jesus?
No, wait, I remember: I’m just a bigoted asshole.
I did my part, but I fear the bigots may win this one.
Side note: So THAT is what a clean garage looks like!
I know you were just being sarcastic, but that’s the ad hominem argument, PZ. It’s wrong because it discriminates against people who aren’t doing any harm to anybody, just because they are who they are. And the justification for discrimination is embedded in a fundamentally irrational, internally contradictory, and demonstrably false belief system. I don’t decide what’s right and wrong based on what specific other people think.
PZ, you may want to have a look at this No On Prop 8 advertisement. It’s apparently pissed off the LDS Church quite a bit, and they’ve attempted to get it pulled from the airwaves by howling like hypocritical loons.
Thanks for making this post PZ.
Walton, I think you are missing the point. The legal basis is that all humans have the same rights. Those rights do not have to be innumerated. There is no basis in the California Constitution for hetrosexual marriage either. A quick search of the California Constitiion shows only two references to marriage — the first has to do with property and the second has to do with taxes. The ruling by the court simply affirmed that the right to marry who we want includes same sex couples.
Done and done thanks PZ! Also please vote NO on Prop 4 in California, if this passes girls under 18 will be required to inform their parents if they want an abortion. The theotards are all over these two propositions.
Yeah unfortunately William Gibson is a bit of a prick too.
Gay people will continue to get married, all proposition 8 does is deny them the rights associated with marriage, they’ll still find gay-friendly pastors, have a ceremony, live together in a monogamous loving (and yes, sexual) relationship. Prop 8 is a hateful piece of legislative crap, we dealt with this in Oregon not too long ago and my state disappointed me greatly. I hope California can be a bit more wise, but I’m not holding my breath.
Hey Walton,
Here’s your “real basis for it in the California state constitution”:
“All people.” What more were you looking for?
Also Florida Amdt. 2.
Don’t forget Florida has Amendment 2, which is the same garbage.
CJO@3:
I WAS a big OSC fan until I started reading his website and realized he was a bigotted idiot. I was very disappointed. Still love the Ender books though.
I did my part! NO on 8!!!
I am not going to miss the barrage of commercials and yard signs (placed every 1/4 mile along the highway in some areas) in favor of 8.
And Arizona has prop 102. Let’s sink ALL these attempts at theo-thuggery.
I did my part. Today I voted, and on Sunday I attended a surprisingly big rally in Santa Clarita, CA, where we got an amazing response. But the amount of money behind the other side is shocking. All you have to do is compare the two rallies and see the No side filled with hand-made (and beautifully thought-out) banners and signs, and the other with professionally-printed corporate-level designs, slogans, and common themes. That alone should show you that one side has some ulterior motives for their actions, while the other side is personal.
I’m still shocked by the whole angle they’re taking, though. The Yes crowd is heavily pushing this Freedom of Religion angle, and Freedom of Speech. They’re making it out that if the law fails and gay marriage is allowed, THEY will be discriminated against for their bigoted views. So apparently THEIR right to avoid discrimination trumps that of others.
Never in my life (granted, I’m only 26, so I missed the worst of history) have I witnessed such public and unabashed displays of hatred. Entire families smiling, waving, and jumping up and down with Yes on 8 signs as though their hate is something to be proud of.
My office has two prominent Yes on 8 employees with bumper stickers and presence at the rallies which makes things uncomfortable. I even overheard a conversation between them where one literally used the age-old, “what’ll be next, marrying goats?” argument. I had to avoid dropping my jaw in shock that such stupidity and unoriginality really exists around me. I guess I was living in a delusional bubble where the people who surround me can’t possibly be as stupid as the ones I read about online every day. They must live somewhere else. Thankfully at the No rally I ran into several coworkers I had no idea were on the same side, so that restored some of my faith (I have trouble even using that word thanks to what they’ve done to it) in humanity.
If it meant a damn thing I’d be praying for tonight’s results. Instead I’ll just hope really, really hard.
Did my part! And PZ, its vote no on “H8” not hate…
Walter: Seriously? There is no secular argument against allowing homosexual marriage? I should remind you of the document “Marriage and the Common Good,” issued by the Witherspoon Institute (Princeton, NJ), which not only has a long list of impressive signatures from professors in Psychology, Law, Biology, and Philosophy, but is also purely a secular argument against it. The pdf can be downloaded for free here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/330163
Obama is against gay marriage. Where’s the outrage about that?
Seems logical to me, but then I’m not a racist, homophobic bastard.
I’ve had a few discussions here with pro-8 people and I have yet to hear an argument that is not based upon bigotry, hatred, fear or lies. And a lot of people try to argue that they’re not bigots because gay people will still have the option of a domestic partnership. Again the doctrine of separate but equal rears its ugly head.
I really hope this thing doesn’t pass, but there’s a good chance it will. I know quite a few registered Democrats around here(the Central Valley) who are social consevatives. So I fear that the registration advantage Democrats enjoy in this state will not help the No For 8 cause.
*sigh*
Ideally, it shouldn’t even be a question. But, given that it is, I’m considering the idea that it might be better for it to pass so someone can challenge it in the Supreme Court and get it settled once and for all.
It sucks. But so is McCain and Obama’s other positions got my vote.
I saw a large “Yes on 8” rally two days ago. There were people holding up signs saying “Prop 8=Religious freedom.” These people must engage in some of the most egregiously twisted, Mormonic doublethink to equate banning gay marriage to religious freedom.
It’s also important that Californians get out and vote against Prop 4, which seeks to amend the constitution to require a waiting period for abortions and parental notification for minors.
I’ve only recently become a resident of CA, and I hope that my new state can make me proud.
Where’s the outrage about that?
He’s not a proponent of gay marriage, but he’s not “against” it in the sense of trying to crush it through legislation. There’s a difference, and that’s why there’s not a lot of outrage about it.
Keep in mind, the next president will likely get to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices, and Obama is much more likely to appoint civil-rights-friendly judges than McCain, who has said he will try to appoint more Scalias.
I’m surprised you’re letting Obama off the hook on this. How much difference would it have made if Obama had come to California and campaigned against prop. 8? How about if he had had the courage in the nationally televised debate to say, “I support gay marriage”?
Mr. Stross did not mention the one aspect of marriage rights that probably pisses me off the most: If marriage is such a sacred institution, then why is it that convicted murderers serving sentences of life imprisonment (w/o parole) can still be married? Its like they’re saying “We’ll take away every right as a free citizen you have for murder and rape of that child, but we’re really uncomfortable denying you the right to marry your “murderers-are-so-hot” pen pal wife” Freakin boggles my mind!!
I did my part. The “yes on 8” people have been out in full force in my inland SoCal city – on street corners with their homeschooled children all day. Obviously none of them have jobs. I so hope they will be sent back to their “hatey holes” today.
Did my fair share as well, voted no on Prop 8.
@ Naked Bunny – I agree and I think that maybe four Supreme Court justices will be decided over the next term of office. That is why I voted for Obama. The idea of having McCain/Palin clones/clowns appointed to the Court just sicken me.
Vanya: The “outrage” here is against attempts to enshrine bigotry in law, not necessarily someones personal opinion of gay marriage. Furthermore, we don’t really know Obama’s real opinion on gay marriage were we to ask him in private. Of course he has to say he is against gay marriage if he were to have any hope of getting elected president. He is still a politician after all.
Please vote NO on 8.
Please don’t divorce me.
@Robert:
“There is no secular argument against allowing homosexual marriage? I should remind you of […] “Marriage and the Common Good,” […which] is also purely a secular argument against it”
It is nothing of the kind. Rather, it is an utterly disingenous conflation of narrow-minded morality with the wholly unrelated idea that marriage is good.
Not a single one of its arguments for marriage as an institution require the parties to be of the opposite gender for the benefits it lists to be true. The obvious exception to this – reproduction – is null: by their own argument a loving and stable environment is good for a child, hence an adopted child could hardly suffer if a marriage between two members of the same sex produced such.
The number of professors contributing is impressive only in the degree of horror that it evinces.
Those wipers of other peoples’ bottoms; silly Columbus Knnnnniggots!
I should remind you of the document
Have you actually read it? They start off by defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman and then casually brush off any variance from their definition as bad because it’s not what people are used to.
One of their guiding principles is that secular marriage can’t be separated from religious marriage, which defeats the purpose of putting it forward as a secular argument against gay marriage.
They then round that out with a “think of the children” appeal where they admit that there’s very little data on how same-sex marriages will affect kids before, then concluding anyway that it will be harmful because kids have to think more about topics like sexual identity and gender roles in our culture. Horrors!
Finally, they pull out the whole “marriage is about procreation” nonsense and include low-birthrate states from countries where same-sex marriage is legal without bothering to demonstrate causality or even why making babies is such a damned important goal for a married couple. Oh right, because that’s the way it’s always been. I almost forgot their earlier point.
So, yeah, if this is what passes for “secular” arguments against same-sex marriage, then I’m not impressed.
Prop 8 would change the Ca Constitution. How does a simple majority popular vote qualify for amending a Constitution?
This is ridiculous on this level alone.
I think the Mormons are cowards in a very deep way.
They cave in when the pressure mounts enough. They used to endorse polygamy, but when it threatened Utah’s bid for statehood, their prophet had an amazing and timely revelation.
During the civil rights movement, they didn’t permit black people to the priesthood. Then, with mounting pressure, there came another miraculous revelation.
I hope that someday this goofy cult will have shown its spinelessness again, and accept the equal treatment of gay and lesbian people by the American government.
@#20, #21: Wow, I’m not the only person who noticed FL Amendment 2. Judging by its coverage on the Internet, I wondered if I was. Anyway, yea, it too must not pass.
I’m surprised you’re letting Obama off the hook on this.
That must be because you aren’t listening, or did you miss what was said about the Supreme Court. If Prop 8 loses this year, it will be introduced in every election from now on until (a) it passes or (b) the Supreme Court makes such amendments to state constitutions illegal. If you want any chance of there being enough civil-rights friendly justices on the Supreme Court, you have to get Obama in the White House.
Sometimes strategy requires short-term losses to gain long-term victories. I know, it sucks, but that’s really what it boils down to.
Already voted against 8 and for Obama this morning.
The thing is, this proposition is so wildly unconstitutional and bigoted that I just can’t see it lasting long even if it does get passed. How hard is it to overturn clearly unconstitutional propositions like this?
So are you voting for McCain? Can you seriously try and make the argument that the Republican party is more supportive of homosexual rights than the Democrats? If not then Obama and his party tend to be much more progressive in their actions and opinions than the republicans.
No the Democrats are far from perfect and we should ride their ass until they improve, but if you are going to vote, which would choose?
He’s not getting a pass.
If religious institutions didn’t change their theology based on the public moral zeitgeist, most churches would be advocating antisemitism, racism, slavery, burning witches, torturing heretics, etc. I don’t think the LDS Hierarchy are any more hypocritical in that respect than, say, the Catholic Hierarchy, they’re just newer.
Already done!
–My part, that is. I voted on my way to work this morning.
Aside from the fact that Obama would then lose the general election, changing the face of the federal Supreme Court for a generation in a way that opponents of Prop 8 would not like at all, probably not much.
I’m consistently amazed by our ability to prefer making political statements about ideological purity over having that ideology actually passed as law. We never learn the lesson that sometimes, taking 80% of what you want now and getting the rest in the long run is actually better than taking 100% of what you want now and losing it all in the long run.
He’s not. If you do some research on Pharyngula, you’ll see that we’ve all been, at times, very critical on specific aspects of the Obama campaign platform. yes, he opposes same sex marriage… and for that, I’m disappointed. However, because I’m not a single issue voter, I look at the range of issues, his range of stances and decide which candidate supports not only the specific issues I support, but I look at the temperament and intellectual curiosity as well.
Obama has my vote not because he is lock-step in all of my core issues, but because I trust him (even when he disagrees with them) to give an honest look at the issue.
There are dozens of things I dont like about Obama, but there are more things I dont like about McCain. There are several areas where Obama and I disagree… (There is no positive evidence for god) but Obama and I generally agree on the role of religion in a secular government.
Is he off the hook, no. But that alone doesnt define a candidate.
Connecticut is voting on whether or not they want a state constitutional convention. It would allow for the possibility of an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.
Isn’t Proposition 8 a pretty clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Not until the right is established at the federal level.
My spouse and I did our part first thing this morning on the way to work. We did not, oddly enough, decide that anyone else should not have a spouse. I always thought that if you were lucky enough to find someone to love you should grab them and never let go…there’s too little love and happiness in this world as it is.
Oh, and I hate and abhor the idiots in Sacramento this weekend with their kids on the street corner screaming “I love you” while holding their signs of hate. My answer was, and will always be “I don’t love you. I hate you, your god, and what you stand for. Fuck off.”
@Flonkbob
your name is very familiar… you wouldnt happen to know FLC and grlfury would you? That’s my sis and her wife.
funny i should see you on Pharyngula, Rock on!
Did my part. This conservative voted against 8 and for Obama.
Obama is against gay marriage. Where’s the outrage about that?
Um, in your post right there? Disapproval about that has been expressed here by others in the past.
How about if he had had the courage in the nationally televised debate to say, “I support gay marriage”?
Lying is courageous? Obama opposes Prop 8 but doesn’t support gay marriage. I wish his view on gay marriage was different, but I welcome his ability to make the distinction between personally not being for something and rewriting the constitution to forbid it.
Architeuthis @57
Yep, I’m me, and I know them. My spouse was the one who married them the first time…here’s hoping we can see a civil repeat soon!
So are you voting for McCain?
Is that where Vanya is going? In that case we should express our outrage at the concern troll and not let him off the hook.
Prop 8 is big big big here. Especially in my town where there are sign holders on every corner. Of course I voted against it this morning. However, this is what we are up against, can’t argue against razor sharp logic like this:
“elise12
i know what I rough, God punishes dose who go against him, and God also punishes those who he loves, God created man and a women, man created and make lots of mad cheeses, being Gay is one of them , came from man not from God, we can not blame God for if me or you we make bad chases, we have to live with that, for that there is no one to blame.
-read Matthew, and Genesis 2:24,
we all have right to are opinion, no mater what it is, but don’t expect others to not say something back
11/4/2008 12:22 PM PST on news10.net “
@Flonkbob #60
I’m so there! hopefully, the twins will be able to come too :)
No I don’t think that is what Vanya (I hope at least) is saying and the rest of my comment explains why voting for Obama is not letting him off the hook on this issue. It was more making a point vs. actually thinking that Vanya was suggesting we should vote for McCain.
The thing is, this proposition is so wildly unconstitutional and bigoted that I just can’t see it lasting long even if it does get passed. How hard is it to overturn clearly unconstitutional propositions like this?
Political science .001: Constitutional amendments are not unconstitutional.
Oliver:
Once one ignores the rhetoric of your post one notices nothing of substance. It is a secular argument in that it is written without appeal to religion. That is all I need to prove my point against Walter. You may think it “narrow-minded morality”–which you presuppose is a bad thing–or whatever other silly name you wish to call something that doesn’t sit well with you. But if you were to sit in on one of my introduction to logic classes, you would know that “name calling” is not an acceptable form of rational rebuttal. Your assertion that marriage being a good is unrelated to this issue commits the fallacy of begging the question. They have said it is. You must provide a rational reason why they are wrong. You can’t just assert it. Your example of the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple shows you didn’t read the article in its entirety because they do explain why they reject this and why it follows from their argument. You assert it doesn’t follow. Again, you beg the question.
The main point to gather from this is not that the authors are right; rather, it is to show that there IS a secular argument against homosexual marriage. You may believe it to be unsound, but you have provided no reason why it is invalid.
RE: Latino vote (#2).
Yes, it is indeed sad. That’s what cathoholism will do to you. Having grown up in that kind of environment, it is frustrating indeed.
The ads here in LA for prop 8 are disgusting, deceitful (surprise), and just fucking lies. Even if you don’t agree that gay people should marry, you should vote “NO” on principle against this kind of dirty campaign. If you don’t think gay people should marry, then don’t!, but don’t tell others they can’t.
How does a simple majority popular vote qualify for amending a Constitution?
By the Constitution saying it does. If you want to change it, get a proposition on the next ballot to do so — surprisingly enough, you would only need a simple majority popular vote to make the change.
Well, I believe the objection, properly stated, would be:
How is it permissible to amend the Constitution of California such that it generates a clear contradiction?
(The contradiction being, the deprivation of individual liberties that Prop. 8 would bring about)
I’m not Mormon, but, some Mormons have come out against Prop 8. Most notably, in my area, Barbara Young wife of Steve Young, former 49er quarterback (and descendant of Brigham Young though that isn’t too uncommon). Steve hasn’t come out publicly against but he has said he supports his wife. She has donated several tens of thousands of dollars and their yard has several no on prop 8.
that there IS a secular argument against homosexual marriage
In the same way that “I think you’re wrong, so you’re wrong” IS an argument (an invalid one) that you’re wrong
You may believe it to be unsound, but you have provided no reason why it is invalid.
False. And so has NBwaW @43.
I voted against Prop 8 via absentee ballot last week, from here in MT. Did it for my brother, who will undoubtedly be affected by prop 8 if it passes.
If it fails… that would send a clear message out to the LGBT community, basically saying “Hey, look! We don’t think you’re freaks anymore. You’re just like us, and you’re OK.” I think a reassuring ‘gesture’ like that is more than overdue.
@truth machine, OM #65
Riiight, but I’ve seen far less odious amendments overturned. Your point?
This is an establishment of a religious rule, is it not? I am unaware of any non-religious arguments in this proposition’s favor.
How is it permissible to amend the Constitution of California such that it generates a clear contradiction?
How would it be otherwise? Do you expect the Secy of State to perform the judicial function and decide which amendments do generate contradictions and which don’t? Again, it is permissible because the Constitution permits it. If there is in fact a clear contradiction, then the state Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict when a case is brought before it that hinges on such a resolution.
(The contradiction being, the deprivation of individual liberties that Prop. 8 would bring about)
You might try citing the clauses of the constitution that establish the appropriate individual liberties that would be clearly contradicted by this amendment. Hint: if there were such clauses, the California Supreme Court would have quoted them in its decision. But it just isn’t that simple. The court had to construct an indirect argument that goes as follows: a) There is a right to marry. b) There’s a right to marry whom you wish. c) Gender preference is a “suspect category” so the state needs a compelling interest to discriminate on that basis, and such discrimination must be necessary to meeting that interest. d) The state has no such compelling interest.
Obama’s on record saying he opposes Prop 8 – but wasting time campaigning in CA, a state already pro-Obama, would have been counter-productive. I’m looking forward to his being able to appoint at least two, if not three, progressive SC justices.
66: Oh, please! The document is so full of question-begging arguments that it’s laughable. It boils down to “heterosexual marriage is better because it’s better. QED!”
Re: the “Institute” itself: Are you aware that Luis Tellez, its president, is also the director and lead cleric of Opus Dei in Princeton? Or that Dr. Robert George, a board member of the Institute who has drafted anti-gay legislation and has chaired meetings with people such as James Dobson and other members of the religious right, is also a board member at the Family Research Council, a group known for its bigoted positions on the gay community? Or that it identifies itself as a conservative think tank? Of course you are.
“The Witherspoon Institute is grateful to the John Templeton Foundation and the Social Trends Institute for the financial assistance that has made this research possible.”
Riiight, but I’ve seen far less odious amendments overturned.
No you haven’t, not by courts or legislatures, as they don’t have that power.
Your point?
Um, my point was to correct mistaken claims and provide reasons why they are mistaken.
This is an establishment of a religious rule, is it not? I am unaware of any non-religious arguments in this proposition’s favor.
Non sequitur.
And if you have trouble reading but think enshrining religious bigotry into a constitution, make sure to vote NO on Prop 8 (and vote down the Florida & Arizona attempts if you live there)! A “yes” vote amends the CA constitution to say that only a man and a woman can marry.
(I know it’s hard to believe but there are people who think a “yes” vote gives LGBT folks the right to marry… Sigh. READ before you vote!)
See post #19.
Article 1, Section 1 would be violated.
I hope that I do not need to spell it out for you in any further detail, or are you going to be so obtuse as to say, “Huh? How does the denial of marriage rights — and the automatic legal benefits that result from it — to a specific portion of the population deny anybody of the rights enumerated there?”
“Riiight, but I’ve seen far less odious amendments overturned.”
No you haven’t, not by courts or legislatures, as they don’t have that power.
Case in point: the odious 18th amendment of the U.S. Constitution was overturned by the 21th amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that’s what it took.
If Prop 8 passes, we will have to put another proposition before the voters in order to overturn it.
Isn’t Proposition 8 a pretty clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Well, maybe.
The purpose of the full faith and credit clause is to require the states to recognize the outcome of litigation in another state. The phrase is “public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state”, and at the time of ratification, marriage wasn’t something state governments were involved in.
If you consider something like professional licenses, for example, being admitted to the bar or having a medical license in one state doesn’t necessarily mean that other states have to consider you licensed.
-jcr
67: The ad that pissed me off the most was the one re: the 1st grade school field trip to the lesbian wedding. OMG! Teh childrens exposed to teh homosekchewals! Yeah, their teacher’s wedding, for which they all had parental permission to attend.
As I pointed out to someone who commented on my No on 8 bumper sticker: There’s nothing to prevent schools from discussing gay marriage if Prop 8 passes – in fact, it would be much more likely, in view of the constant Yes on 8 TV ads and the inevitable lawsuits that will arise re: marriages already performed [that little ex post facto law problem…] And, I asked, if the ostensible purpose of marriage is to procreate [another argument], shouldn’t we immediately ban marriage for people who aren’t intending or are too old to have kids and annul the marriages of couples who are subsequently discovered to be infertile. Oh, and ban divorce…
Article 1, Section 1 would be violated.
Not clearly. Not to anyone who has any grasp of how constitutional arguments work. Otherwise, it would also be clear that people can own nukes and can shout fire in crowded theaters.
I hope that I do not need to spell it out for you in any further detail, or are you going to be so obtuse
Fuck off.
During the civil rights movement, they didn’t permit black people to the priesthood. Then, with mounting pressure, there came another miraculous revelation.
Back when I was in high school, I had a friend whose parents were mormons. They converted when she was in her early teens.
I will never forget her mother telling me with a straight face, that nobody in the church was particularly happy about the segregation, and how happy they all were when god changed its mind and told the prophet that associating with black people was all just fine and dandy now! I think she actually believed what she was telling me.
-jcr
Please see #8.
Ah, see, but the 21st amendment doesn’t contradict the 18th. It repealed it. There is a difference between repealing something and contradicting something. The 18th and the 21st cancel each other out.
In contrast, Prop 8 doesn’t repeal or explicitly claim to nullify Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of California. It contradicts by trying to deny something which Article 1, Section 1 should allow. That’s the difference; that’s why it necessarily fails.
This Proposition is made of theocracy. It menaces with spikes of bigotry and is encircled with bands of illogic. It is encrusted with ignorance, and decorated with hanging rings of falsehood. On this item is an image of the US Constitution in fail. The Constitution is burning.
I voted no. In case you can’t tell.
“…Isn’t that enough to tell you it must be wrong?”
That, of course, would be an appeal to reason, those capable of rational thought.
Unfortunately, the criteria for “wrongness” for an alarming number of people are either devastatingly irrational or entirely missing.
(Wow, major deja vu moment there. Best one in years. Fascinating as it’s insubstantial and irrelevant. Big brains are SOOOOO COOL!!!)
I stand in awe of your madd debating skillz, d00d.
And yes, you are being obtuse. C’mon, tell me how Prop 8 isn’t bringing separate-but-equal back into play. It should be easy to somebody who has a grasp of how constitutional arguments work!
Or were you talking about somebody else, there?
And as for spelling out things in detail, I’ll repeat what I wrote:
a) There is a right to marry. b) There’s a right to marry whom you wish. c) Gender preference is a “suspect category” so the state needs a compelling interest to discriminate on that basis, and such discrimination must be necessary to meeting that interest. d) The state has no such compelling interest.
But if Prop 8 passes, the state won’t need to prove such an interest, because the exception will already have been carved out by the amendment, and that amendment has the same constitutional standing as Article 1 Section 1. So you can’t cite the latter against the Prop 8 amendment, and the amendment will rule because it’s a specific exception to a very general rule. Even if Article 1 Section 1 sanctioned every means of pursuing and obtaining happiness, which of course it doesn’t, the Prop 8 amendment would explicitly exclude a particular one. And my pointing this out of course does not endorse Prop 8 or the ability of a majority of small-minded citizens to insert their bigotries into the constitution.
. C’mon, tell me how Prop 8 isn’t bringing separate-but-equal back into play.
Who the fuck said it isn’t? But that’s a matter of federal law, and same-sex marriage is not recognized as a right at the federal level — yet, oh obtuse one.
Still love the Ender books though.
I enjoyed those too, but when I tried a few of his later books, I found them rather tedious. I think it’s something that happens to authors when they reach a certain level of success where they can ignore editors.
-jcr
@#89:
Ah, I see. So Prop 8, by your way of thinking, does amend or otherwise specifically narrow the scope of Article 1, Section 1. Do I have that correct?
If that’s the case, then it’s a sanctioning of separate-but-equal protection under the law. Opposite-gender couples get the intrinsic legal protection and benefits of marriage, whereas same-gender couples get… what… civil unions? As I understand it, those things aren’t worth squat, because they don’t grant the same default protections and rights that marriage does.
By the way, TM, I apologize for getting a bit too antagonistic back there. This prop 8 thing ticks me off, because of what it says about us as a people, and what it implies the things people are willing to do to each other.
If anyone wants to have a smile and relieve the tension of the day (not to mention prepare yourself for the possibility that your favorite candidate could lose) I recommend this video of a pair of speeches by McCain and Obama at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner three weeks ago. They’re both very funny, and it’s nice to see the harsher side of politics cast aside. They take cracks at each other, as well as at themselves.
My favorite parts are both about the economy. John McCain mentions that if the economy suddenly rebounds, Obama will suspend his campaign and fly to Washington to deal with the problem. Similarly, Obama mentions that a McCain adviser had said that if we people talking about the economy, McCain would lose … “so tonight I’d like to talk about the economy.”
If you’ve been following the election, it’s a nice bit of comic relief.
Ah, see, but the 21st amendment doesn’t contradict the 18th. It repealed it. There is a difference between repealing something and contradicting something. The 18th and the 21st cancel each other out.
Duh. The question was how amendments are overturned. The 21st overturned the 18th; it could not be overturned by the legislature or the courts.
In contrast, Prop 8 doesn’t repeal or explicitly claim to nullify Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of California. It contradicts by trying to deny something which Article 1, Section 1 should allow. That’s the difference; that’s why it necessarily fails.
Once again … all sections of the constitution have equal force; one doesn’t fail simply because it contradicts another. The court would have to resolve the difference, and the way such things are resolved is that explicit specific exclusions have precedence over general rules — especially ones like Article 1 Section 1 that do not enumerate any specific means of achieving the mentioned goals.
The implication of all of this is, for those too obtuse to grasp it, how important it is that Prop 8 not pass, because it will not fail when it hits the court.
Ah, I see. So Prop 8, by your way of thinking, does amend or otherwise specifically narrow the scope of Article 1, Section 1. Do I have that correct?
Yes.
If that’s the case, then it’s a sanctioning of separate-but-equal protection under the law. Opposite-gender couples get the intrinsic legal protection and benefits of marriage, whereas same-gender couples get… what… civil unions? As I understand it, those things aren’t worth squat, because they don’t grant the same default protections and rights that marriage does.
Look, Prop 8 SUCKS. But it doesn’t suck because it deprives same-sex couples of legal rights — through diligent work, California law has been changed so that domestic partnerships — that’s the California term — have nearly the same California legal rights as civil marriages; neither civil marriages nor domestic partnerships have federal marriage rights, which neither Prop 8 nor any other California law can change. The reason Prop 8 sucks is because — as spelled out in the California Supreme Court decision, which is long but worth reading — it provides state sanction to the denigration of same-sex unions and reinforces the historical prejudices against gays. And this sort of state-sanctioned discrimination will spill over and affect legal rights in other states that don’t have the advanced legal status for same-sex unions that California domestic partnerships grant.
This prop 8 thing ticks me off, because of what it says about us as a people, and what it implies the things people are willing to do to each other.
if you think I’m not at least as ticked off as you are, you haven’t been following.
neither civil marriages nor domestic partnerships have federal marriage rights
Sorry, that’s neither civil marriages between same-sex couples, nor domestic partnerships (between same-sex couples or people of same or different gender over 62) have federal marriage rights — those rights extend to different-sex couples with California marriages, of course. If we were to get a federal amendment passed that barred discrimination on the basis of gender preference, then Prop 8 would be moot. But we weren’t even able to obtain the Equal Rights Amendment, which only bars discrimination “on account of sex”.
AmyD (3:35 PM, #62):
That person who wrote that comment is wrong.
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
And the low birthrate thing is conveniently forgotten when they need to bring up another boogeyman:
“Countries with high rates of illegitimacy and divorce, such as Sweden and Denmark, spend much more money on welfare expenditures, as a percentage of their GDP, than countries with relatively low rates of illegitimacy and divorce, such as Spain and Japan.” (p. 37)
The only one of those four countries with actual same sex marriage is Spain.
Robert:
the ‘secular argument’ is not an argument: they begin by assuming the conclusion they hope to “prove”, and provide no research to support their claims.
secular it may be: filled with support, logical constructions, and honest thought, it is not.
I don’t care who you vote for. I’m just saying it’s hypocritical to express outrage at the supporters of 8, then say it’s OK for Obama to say he’s against gay marriage because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t get elected. How are you going to feel if 8 barely passes and Obama wins by a landslide?
There is a similar proposition (Prop 102) on the Arizona ballot today, too. So, please, if you’re voting in AZ, vote no on the bigoted proposition.
I have a little more to say about this topic here, if you’re interested.
Sorry if I missed its mention, but here in Florida we have Amendment 2, which is basically the same thing. I hope this doesn’t pass.
it’s hypocritical to express outrage at the supporters of 8, then say it’s OK for Obama to say he’s against gay marriage
No it’s not, for the blindingly simple reason that he is not a supporter of Prop. 8.
And I’m not sure that many here are saying “it’s OK,” what I mainly hear is, it’s defensible on pragmatic grounds given that it’s a political necessity in one of the most culturally divisive election campaigns in history (and one in which the LBGT community has a great deal to lose if McCain is elected).
I’m just saying it’s hypocritical to express outrage at the supporters of 8, then say it’s OK for Obama to say he’s against gay marriage because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t get elected.
You’re just saying something very stupid. Lots of people don’t support gay marriage but also are voting against Prop 8 — e.g., Arnold Schwartzenegger. Being less unhappy with them than with people who vote for Prop 8 is not hypocrisy or anything like it. And your statement mixes apples and oranges — even if Obama lived in CA and had to vote for Prop 8 in order to get elected, it wouldn’t be hypocritical to hold him to a different standard than people who don’t have that excuse. But not only doesn’t Obama live in CA and isn’t voting for Prop 8, he has publicly opposed Prop 8.
You say that as if “separate but equal” is a precedent for a constitutional amendment being declared unconstitutional by the courts. But that is not the case, separate but equal was not written into the constitution but was simply an interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can overturn its own rulings. If there ever was a “separate but equal” amendment then it would by definition be constitutional .
I must say that I am shocked and saddened on learning of the comments attributed to Orson Scott Card. I’ve been a big fan of his fiction. I’ve read the Ender, Bean, Alvin Maker, and Ships of Earth series, as well as Wyrms and Hart’s Hope and I loved them all. I’ve always thought that the creative process puts a great deal of the creator into the creation, and that a work of fiction provides a window into the mind of the writer. But the values and sentiments expressed in these works are so alien to gross hatefulness of those comments (except for the cycle of procreation thing which has been explicitly stated in a milder form in one of the Bean books). . . . I am shocked.
I am saddened as I will never been able to read these books, some of which rank among my all-time favorite sci-fi works, and consider them in the same light again. Sigh.
Someone must have said this already, of not in precisely the same words, but I’ll say it again:
Separate but “equal” is not equal.
Well, can’t do much about Proposition 8 from Florida, but we’ve done what we can to hold Amendment 2 at bay. The precinct count looks bleak right now, but the night’s still young.
All the arguments I’ve seen against same-sex marriage come down to one or more of three things:
1. A logical fallacy. The slippery slope is most common. “If gays can marry then my dog can marry a fire hydrant.” The Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the people), which basically says that a proposition is true because many people believe it, is also used.
2. “I think what gays do in bed is icky!”
3. “God thinks what gays do in bed is icky!”
I voted NO on 8!!! Sadly, I live in Placer County, and I saw zero signs for NO on 8 except for one lone girl picketing in the rain on Sunday. Yes on 8 must have had some serious cash in my area. Sad.
Well, my wife and I had a “Stop the Hate! No on 8!” hand-made sign in our yard.
The crazy christian lady on the corner had no less than 4 “yes on 8” signs in her yard. Sigh.
I’m a Californian and I’m freaking out over this bullshit. 9% precincts reporting as I write this with 53% Yes. I know it’s not the end, even if it passes, but it would be upsetting to know my state is not as progressive as I like to think.
Yes, yes on 8 is ahead at this point. :( Now I feel really guilty for not doing more to oppose it. This will be a lesson for me, a vote is not enough when all the rabid religious folk have money and bodies and signs and commercials that lie blanketing your area.
The only thing keeping me optimistic at this point is that San Francisco precincts still haven’t really started reporting in.
But we can’t get too depressed. Obama as president will do more for gays in the country as a whole than any president ever has (if he sticks to his guns). Marriage is the only issue left for us in California legally, but there are basic necessities that need to be forced on shitholes like Miss, Ala, Okla, etc. Plus, I still think what we need in CA is a riot. Let them think twice about shitting on us like this, we aren’t safe when the constitution we live under doesn’t treat us as equals.
I’m from California that voted against this Prop 8. I also have had some heated conversations with the “Yes on 8” crowd. I would always ask these people “Why would two gay people getting married hurt you in anyway?” The answer is either “Cause it will ruin society.” or “It’s immoral.” That’s it. That’s how some of these bigots rationalize there stance. I’m sad that right now the Yes is leading with this prop.
To #28:
I could take Obama at his word but he seems to be a sharp enough guy to lie about it. And that’s exactly what I think he was doing. You can’t alienate the undecideds now can you?
Looks like this is going to pass. Its really a shame I hope it doesn’t last long. I always joke and say all adults deserve the right to be equally miserable in marriage hopefully one day that will be true.
Brian: They have no rational or supportable arguments, but their bigotry and fear-mongering appear to be winning the day. What a shame. However, the state supreme court can still strike it down if a challenge to the constitutionality of the amendment is made, yes?