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
Nope, they don't.
Of course, THAT silly arguement was ALSO used to prevent interacial marriages.
Everyone has the SAME right to marry their own race.
Again, it was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
Actually, states are banning discrimination, and opening equal access to MARRIAGE.
Go Vermont!
"Where has someone been convicted on a hate crime charge
>>> Yes, there is a legal right to marriage.
There's a civil right to marriage...as long as you fit the criteria.
>>> And more states are recognising that discrimminating against gays is wrong, just as discrimminating against interracial couples was wrong.
Sure sounds that way...
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations. As of November 2008, twenty-nine states had passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, nineteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any same-sex union. Eighteen additional states, and the territory of Puerto Rico have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
>>> One by one (go Vermont!) the states are recognizing that separate but "equal" isn't REALLY equal.
It sounds like a landslide...
The House barely achieved the votes necessary to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill that will allow gays and lesbians to marry beginning September 1.
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said his side was outspent by supporters by 20-1.
Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who voted no twice because he's philosophically opposed to gay marriage, joined most other Democrats in voting to override Douglas' veto.
"I think if I wanted to continue my career here and have any chance of being effective, I had to vote with my caucus," he said...It's the way the political game is played."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont
>>> Soon the USSC will end this, and make equality the law of the land.
It will be interesting to see if the CASC will overturn the will of the people...and even more startling if the USSC will overturn the CASC...
Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive.
Gay marriage advocates all but conceded defeat.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented some of the plaintiffs, acknowledged that the court had appeared skeptical of their arguments.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story
>>> Thank you, though, for agreeing there is no right to tradition.
OH, but there is...
~It's not my job to inform you of
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Nope, they don't.
Of course, THAT silly arguement was ALSO used to prevent interacial marriages.
>>> Everyone has the SAME right to marry their own race.
That's true.
>>> Again, it was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
People shouldn't be allowed to marry their own race? That's not very progressive.
>>> If everyone DID have the same rights, there would be no need for states to overturn the bans that barred equal access to the same rights.
IF gays accepted civil unions there would be no need for states to overturn the bans the protect marriage.
>>> One more state today, another will be coming soon...
Probably won't be California. And once the CASC upholds prop 8 I'm sure that other states will seek similar protection from over-zealous judges.
>>> And not long after that, USSC will di what they did before, and eliminate the discrimination born of fear mongering.
That would be good...and while they're at it, they'll probably uphold the people's right to amend their constitutions and protect their social institutions.
>>> Why? What changes in a traditional marriage when gay marriage is legal? What are traditionally married couples losing when gay marriage is legal?
Well...um...again...it is a corruption of the definition and tradition of marriage. It imposes social sanction on a behavior held by many to be sinful and it opens the door for every other convolution of marriage that folks can dream up.
Pages