The right's dangerous legal argument
Find a Conversation
The right's dangerous legal argument
| Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:46pm |
Appearing for the supporters of Prop 8, Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, said the people hold the right to modify the state constitution by adding or subtracting protections for civil rights.
Court appears ready to uphold Prop. 8
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.

Pages
>>> You feel people have a legal right to a perception?
You apparently feel they do. I, on the other hand, was speaking of a tradition...and yes, I feel people are entitled to have their traditions respected. It's a shame you don't.
>>> Nothing in my marriage changed, not a single thing was lost, not a right was taken away when my state had legal gay marriage.
You probably didn't notice it but it did.
>>> There was no impact whatsoever on straight marriages, just as there has been no impact in MA or CT nor will be in IA.
Of course there was an impact...the whole definition, intent and tradition of marriage was instantaneously corrupted.
>>> And separate but equal is unconstitutional. Still.
Not in California.<<
>>> We'll see. The Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether prop 8 amended or altered the constitution. In the case of the latter, the initiative process was insufficient according to our constitution.
Insufficient in what regard?
>>The people spoke in November.<<
>>> The people are quite capable of chosing to exclude others from rights they themselves enjoy, which is the reason we have a Constitution and a court system set up to ensure laws made comply with said constitution.
Right...a constitution properly amended by a fair vote.
"The California Supreme Court's seven justices indicated a wariness to override the will of voters
Kennard made it clear Thursday that her position in last year's gay marriage ruling would have no bearing on how she rules this time around. She repeatedly pointed to the public's "very, very broad, well-wrought" authority to amend the state's governing framework at the ballot box.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard's qualms about denying voters their voice."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/06/2009-03-06_california_supreme_court_weighs_overturn-2.html
>>> mmm hmmm. because the term marriage would simply disappear?
According to "gay marriage" proponents it would disappear from the legal lexicon and be redefined from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the religious acknowledgment of a couple joined by some church."
>>> Of coure, the simple solution is to work toward full equality, and stop claiming the "right" to the term "marriage"....then both gay couples and straight couples can be married.
Or, you could stop trying to corrupt social institutions and move forward with new establishments that would guarantee the rights that gays claim (laughter) that they're really seeking.
>>> Legally, though, since the rights (according to you) would be the same, no rights would be lost at all.
So it's civil unions for gay couples then? Excellent...pass the Champagne.
>>> If homosexuals would turn? Ya mean if we collectively make this change?
If you were effective in imposing that change.
>>> Perhaps then everyone would agree to call it marriage and be done with it.
Or if gays would stop trying to co-opt a heterosexual institution and, instead, be happy in gaining the rights they "claim" they're seeking through civil unions.
>>> So you do believe there is a fundament right to marriage.
Not really...but a judge somewhere apparently said so.
>>> And that civil unions, even with the same exact rights, are not a substitute.
No, I think gays should accept civil unions just like girl scouts accept not being boy scouts. Calling their unions "civil unions" won't stop them from saying they're "married" or diminish their relationships or the legal rights conferred by the "civil union."
>>> How nice, you agree entirely with the GLBT marriage equality movement.
So they're on board with civil unions? Fantastic. I knew if we kept at it you'd finally see the light.
Yes, there is a legal right to marriage.
And more states are recognising that discrimminating against gays is wrong, just as discrimminating against interracial couples was wrong.
One by one (go Vermont!) the states are recognizing that separate but "equal" isn't REALLY equal.
Soon the USSC will end this, and make equality the law of the land.
The fun thing about equality is that those who want to have a "traditional marriage" can still do that!
Equality is grand!
Amazingly enough, the "corrupting marriage" silliness was screamed to try to prevent interracial couples from marrying.
It was wrong then.
It's still wrong now.
The right to equal access is not
>>> The fun thing about equality is that those who want to have a "traditional marriage" can still do that!
Not if the definition and the tradition are corrupted.
>>> Equality is grand!
I'm glad you feel that way since everyone already has the same rights.
>>> Amazingly enough, the "corrupting marriage" silliness was screamed to try to prevent interracial couples from marrying. It was wrong then. It's still wrong now.
I think that's rallying cry for the pro-polygamist lobby.
Pages