User Tag List

First 172526272829 Last

Results 261 to 270 of 368

Thread: Prop 8

  1. #261
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    It occurs to me that one could think of homosexuals getting married in the same terms as men having hysterectomies.
    One could... but I'm having trouble seeing why the analogy makes any sense whatsoever.

    Care to clarify?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #262
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Yes, it is pretty similar.

    That's because you're not particularly invested in the traditional definition.
    Similar because it's treated differently, yes. It should be the same.

    It's true that I'm not. I don't see how that changes anything I said, however, or validates that there is a meaningful difference. It's easy to define something as "because it is two gays vs one male and female" and then say "well, it's different". But for that to be relevent, it needs to be a meaningful distinction. If the only distinction is tradition, well, you are right - I disagree, and would happily see this 'tradition' go away... like many others that have gone away in the past, for better equality among all humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Maybe I should fight to receive tax credits because it's not fair that I am denied the same benefits that married couples have. I have a girlfriend, so we should have the same benefits, right?

    *WRONG*
    False argument - you have the ability to go and get recognized when you go to get married. Gays do not. This is exactly the difference that is being talked about here.

  3. #263
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    The real issue is that marriage was granted to gays and lesbians in CA, but may possibly be overturned by a barely won popular vote. Homosexuals ALREADY RECEIVED the right to marry. Subjective value has no place in changing law.

    ------------

    Lets review: In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which amended a section of the California Family Code to read, Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Significantly, Prop. 22 resulted in a statute. It didnt change the states constitution. Statutes must comply with the state and federal constitutions, and if they dont, the courts are charged with striking them down, at least in theory.

    Thats exactly what the California supreme court did in its May 15 decision it ruled that Prop. 22, the statute, violated our state constitution in two major ways. First, the court held that gays and lesbians, like everyone else, enjoy a fundamental right to marry under the constitutions due process and privacy clauses, and that Prop. 22 violated that right. A fundamental right is one the government cant take away from anyone without a compelling reason. Freedom of religion, free expression, and voting are other fundamental rights. Californias is the first state supreme court to recognize the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry, according to Lambda Legal.

    Second, the court held that by permitting heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice, but denying gays and lesbians that same right, Prop. 22 violated the California constitutions equal protection clause. The equal protection clause forbids the government from treating similarly situated citizens differently without some reason. How compelling that reason has to be depends on the right at issue, and whos being deprived of it. If the right is fundamental, or the unequal treatment is based on a suspect classification, the court must apply whats known as strict scrutiny in deciding whether the law is constitutional.

    In its marriage decision, the California supreme court held that Prop. 22 qualified for strict scrutiny on both grounds.

    First, the court ruled that the law impeded the fundamental right to marry. Second, the court recognized that Prop. 22 harmed gays and lesbians while leaving everyone else alone, and then held that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, deeming gays and lesbians worthy of the same protections afforded to other marginalized groups such as African-Americans and women that have historically suffered discrimination. The idea behind suspect classifications, sometimes called suspect classes or protected classes, is simple. If a statute harms members of one of these protected groups more than others, theres a suspicion of discriminatory intent, which binds the courts to scrutinize that law strictly. Long story short, statutes almost never survive the lens of strict scrutiny, and Prop. 22 was no exception.

    Credit: Advocate.com

  4. #264
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    One could... but I'm having trouble seeing why the analogy makes any sense whatsoever.

    Care to clarify?
    Well, for time out of mind in the western tradition, marriage was something that was done by one man with one woman. Now in the 21st century people suddenly think that the gender of the marriage participants is irrelevant.

    If it was relevant before, why is it irrelevant now?

    I mean, maybe it is, but it's a question that ought to be asked.

    In the context of history it's an absurdity, like fishing for squirrels.

  5. #265
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, for time out of mind in the western tradition, marriage was something that was done by one man with one woman. Now in the 21st century people suddenly think that the gender of the marriage participants is irrelevant.

    If it was relevant before, why is it irrelevant now?
    I mean, maybe it is, but it's a question that ought to be asked.
    In the context of history it's an absurdity, like fishing for squirrels.
    When I looked at your comment, it seemed much simpler to me:

    "Okay, men can never get a hysterectomy because biologically they just don't have the equipment; it's like looking for a cure for prostate cancer for women.

    "But marriage is a social convention and thus not an impossibility for anyone. It actually COULD exist to include homosexuals. Therefore it's not even remotely in the same category."
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #266
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    When I looked at your comment, it seemed much simpler to me:

    "Okay, men can never get a hysterectomy because biologically they just don't have the equipment; it's like looking for a cure for prostate cancer for women.

    "But marriage is a social convention and thus not an impossibility for anyone. It actually COULD exist to include homosexuals. Therefore it's not even remotely in the same category."
    The problem is indeed a matter of definitions. You can't give a man a hysterectomy without changing what a hysterectomy is. You can't marry two gays without changing what marriage is.

    It's not a difficult concept... just the idea that heterogeneity is intrinsic to the historical definition of marriage.

    Perhaps it's time to dispense with that, but if we do so, we should be aware that that's what we're doing.

  7. #267
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    The problem is indeed a matter of definitions. You can't give a man a hysterectomy without changing what a hysterectomy is. You can't marry two gays without changing what marriage is.

    It's not a difficult concept... just the idea that heterogeneity is intrinsic to the historical definition of marriage.

    Perhaps it's time to dispense with that, but if we do so, we should be aware that that's what we're doing.
    I think we need to dispense with it.

    As I've said, a body organ is pretty fixed.

    A social convention is not. They're created by people, to serve people.
    Social conventions that no longer serve the public good need to be changed.

    We can disagree on what the public good is, and which conventions are better for people... but I think it's illogical to make an appeal to the "definition of" something that was arbitrary to begin with. (Just like I think most arguments to authority are ridiculous, since it all depends on who you're assuming the authority is; such arguments are only ever used to justify why one person's opinion is "better" than someone else's. Silly.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #268
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    The real issue is that marriage was granted to gays and lesbians in CA, but may possibly be overturned by a barely won popular vote. Homosexuals ALREADY RECEIVED the right to marry. Subjective value has no place in changing law.
    It was my understanding that Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution. If that is the case, then the situation would be analogous to the national prohibition amendment. As such, the California courts would have no more legitimate authority to cancel such an amendment than the Supreme Court would have had to cancel prohibition.

  9. #269
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    It was my understanding that Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution. If that is the case, then the situation would be analogous to the national prohibition amendment. As such, the California courts would have no more legitimate authority to cancel such an amendment than the Supreme Court would have had to cancel prohibition.
    Precisely.

  10. #270
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I don't know much about the specifics of all the law, especially California law -- it's not my expertise.

    But I think it's really a stupid idea to try to squash something of this magnitude through what seems to be technicalities or people jockeying for position. It's not going to go away just because one side managed to somehow maneuver and manipulate enough to get someone to codify their stance. Such an approach is not much better than my kids trying to manipulate the family rules in order to get their way; it just builds resentment and sparks future conflict.

    From a social stability POV, that's really stupid. It's not going to go away, regardless of whatever laws are "passed." It's perceived as a discrimination issue, just like women voters or black rights, and you can rest assured it's just going to get worse and worse until it's resolved in a better way than this.

    From that standpoint, then, I also get irked because those for Prop 8 identify themselves as having the moral high-ground... while I view this sort of solution as an immature approach to social relations. They're not winning any points here.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Why you should vote YES on PROP 19
    By Edgar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-14-2010, 09:12 AM
  2. Media Spin (Prop 8 example)
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 03:53 PM
  3. Props to whomever solves my puzzles first
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 07:29 PM
  4. Protest Prop 8 - This Weekend
    By anii in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO