Heads up OC, the No on Prop 8 protests are coming to you

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Trooper" date=1226457352]Case in Point: Snip from story in the LA Times.



<em>The day after the election, Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles Archdiocese issued a statement thanking his parishioners for supporting proposition 8, which amends California's constitution to ban same-sex marriages, overturning a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing such unions.

"I am grateful to the Catholic Community of Los Angeles for your commitment to the institution of marriage as fashioned by God and to work with such energy <strong>to enshrine this divine plan into our state's Constitution</strong>," he said.

</em></blockquote>


Huh. I wonder if the next proposition will involve forced pregnancies or prevention of birth control, considering popping out the babies fast and furious is also part of Catholic theology.
 
This is not a situation where the government has failed to act, i.e. disability access. Here, a majority of the population has determined that a state issued license should be granted in limited circumstances. Protesting cannot change the outcome of a vote. The people have a right determine the content of their constitution, which btw, is a federally acknowledged right unlike homosexual marriage.... this is a constitutional democracy after all. If the state unilaterally overturned Prop 8, it would effectively trample on the very rights this country was founded to protect.



The only constructive function these protests can serve is changing people's minds. I think the frustration the with protests is that they are not constructive; they seem punitive and the protesters don?t seem to be interested in changing anyone?s mind, rather, the protesters seem to want to tell pro Pop 8 people that their opinion is invalid because it?s tainted with religion, intolerance, bigotry or all of the above.
 
[quote author="three sheets" date=1226458119]This is not a situation where the government has failed to act, i.e. disability access. Here, a majority of the population has determined that a state issued license should be granted in limited circumstances. Protesting cannot change the outcome of a vote. The people have a right determine the content of their constitution, which btw, is a federally acknowledged right unlike homosexual marriage.... this is a constitutional democracy after all. If the state unilaterally overturned Prop 8, it would effectively trample on the very rights this country was founded to protect.



The only constructive function these protests can serve is changing people's minds. I think the frustration the with protests is that they are not constructive; they seem punitive and the protesters don?t seem to be interested in changing anyone?s mind, rather, the protesters seem to want to tell pro Pop 8 people that their opinion is invalid because it?s tainted with religion, intolerance, bigotry or all of the above.</blockquote>


We do not have a simple democracy but rather a republican government with rights protected by a founding document (the Constitution). That document is there to protect the minority from the majority or the whim of the people. You simply cannot use the vote to take away people's rights. . if you do, no one's rights are protected. There would be no "unalienable rights". The Constitution (state or federal) is the foundation of the government and cannot be changed unless there is an overwhelming reason too. Look at what it takes to change the federal Constitution. . .2/3 majority in both houses plus 3/4 of the states.





It is the duty of the judicial branch to ensure that the people/legislature do not overstep their bounds and take away fundamental rights. Look at Brown v. Board or Loving.. Pure an simple: Separate is not equal. . .
 
Eva...I posted this on the Mormon thread, but thought it was fitting to be here as well after your comment regarding, "What do we do next". We are one resilient community ! ;)



<u><span style="font-size: 14px;"><strong>Utah Leaders Push Forward on LGBT Rights Legislation</strong></span></u>



<em>In the wake of Proposition 8, pro-gay Equality Utah is taking the comments of Mormon Church elders as a signal to move forward with legislation that will expand the rights of gays and lesbians in the state, reports The New York Times.



<strong>Defending their members' estimated $20 million contribution to the passage of California's gay marriage ban, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said they are not antigay and wouldn't deny certain legal protections to gays and lesbians."We are taking the LDS Church at its word," Stephanie Pappas, Equality Utah's chairwoman, told The Times.</strong>



The five pieces of legislation will be sponsored by out state senator Scott McCoy and two lesbian members of the state's house of representatives. McCoy indicated the bills would be ready by January and would aim to advance LGBT rights specifically in areas that Mormon leaders said they would find acceptable.



McCoy added that introducing the series of bills is an attempt to find a positive outlet for the anger that has been stoked by Prop. 8.



?We need to come back down and we need to think, ?OK, now that we are where we are, what is the way we move forward?? ? McCoy said at a news conference. ?And the way that we move forward is to channel that energy and that anger and that disappointment into constructive channels.? (The Advocate)</em>
 
No, three sheets. I want to be <strong>visible</strong> to the greater community, since so many of us are not "out" and many claim not to know a homosexual. I want to express my displeasure and let off some steam. I want to make people SEE me....see who it actually affected...and show you that even though you "won" this round, we will never give up.

We will win eventually. Hopefully I'll live to see it.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226458795]

We do not have a simple democracy but rather a republican government with rights protected by a founding document (the Constitution). That document is there to protect the minority from the majority or the whim of the people. You simply cannot use the vote to take away people's rights. . if you do, no one's rights are protected. There would be no "unalienable rights". The Constitution (state or federal) is the foundation of the government and cannot be changed unless there is an overwhelming reason too. Look at what it takes to change the federal Constitution. . .2/3 majority in both houses plus 3/4 of the states.





It is the duty of the judicial branch to ensure that the people/legislature do not overstep their bounds and take away fundamental rights. Look at Brown v. Board or Loving.. Pure an simple: Separate is not equal. . .</blockquote>


IrvineCommuter, I don't disagree with you in a general sense. However, the profound fact that you failed to acknowledge is that the SCOTUS has explicitly refused to grant protected status to homosexuals - and therefore, a "separate but equal" system does not run afoul of the federal equal protection clauses. Therefore, the people of California are free to determine which homosexual rights they want to acknowledge in the state constitution, as long as the resulting discrimination has a "rational basis." The SCOTUS has previously indicated (and some justices have expressly stated) that upholding a traditional view of marriage is "rational."



Put another way, I agree with you that the federal constitution is difficult to amend, however, homosexual marriage is a right not guaranteed by the federal constitution. Therefore, when a state finds that its own constitution guarantees a right to homosexual marriage (as did the California Supreme Court), the only way that right can be changed is by amendment of the state constitution. And whether anyone likes it or not, the California constitution may be amended by a majority vote of the people - or as you put it, "simple democracy.?



Also, since you brought it up, the SCOTUS has specifically found that Loving does not apply to homosexual marriage. To boot, lower federal courts ruling on homosexual marriage have routinely interpreted the fundamental right to marry under Loving as arising from the right to procreate....
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226458795][quote author="three sheets" date=1226458119]This is not a situation where the government has failed to act, i.e. disability access. Here, a majority of the population has determined that a state issued license should be granted in limited circumstances. Protesting cannot change the outcome of a vote. The people have a right determine the content of their constitution, which btw, is a federally acknowledged right unlike homosexual marriage.... this is a constitutional democracy after all. If the state unilaterally overturned Prop 8, it would effectively trample on the very rights this country was founded to protect.



The only constructive function these protests can serve is changing people's minds. I think the frustration the with protests is that they are not constructive; they seem punitive and the protesters don?t seem to be interested in changing anyone?s mind, rather, the protesters seem to want to tell pro Pop 8 people that their opinion is invalid because it?s tainted with religion, intolerance, bigotry or all of the above.</blockquote>


We do not have a simple democracy but rather a republican government with rights protected by a founding document (the Constitution). That document is there to protect the minority from the majority or the whim of the people. You simply cannot use the vote to take away people's rights. . if you do, no one's rights are protected. There would be no "unalienable rights". The Constitution (state or federal) is the foundation of the government and cannot be changed unless there is an overwhelming reason too. Look at what it takes to change the federal Constitution. . .2/3 majority in both houses plus 3/4 of the states.





It is the duty of the judicial branch to ensure that the people/legislature do not overstep their bounds and take away fundamental rights. Look at Brown v. Board or Loving.. Pure an simple: Separate is not equal. . .</blockquote>


I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226458795][quote author="three sheets" date=1226458119]This is not a situation where the government has failed to act, i.e. disability access. Here, a majority of the population has determined that a state issued license should be granted in limited circumstances. Protesting cannot change the outcome of a vote. The people have a right determine the content of their constitution, which btw, is a federally acknowledged right unlike homosexual marriage.... this is a constitutional democracy after all. If the state unilaterally overturned Prop 8, it would effectively trample on the very rights this country was founded to protect.



The only constructive function these protests can serve is changing people's minds. I think the frustration the with protests is that they are not constructive; they seem punitive and the protesters don?t seem to be interested in changing anyone?s mind, rather, the protesters seem to want to tell pro Pop 8 people that their opinion is invalid because it?s tainted with religion, intolerance, bigotry or all of the above.</blockquote>


We do not have a simple democracy but rather a republican government with rights protected by a founding document (the Constitution). That document is there to protect the minority from the majority or the whim of the people. You simply cannot use the vote to take away people's rights. . if you do, no one's rights are protected. There would be no "unalienable rights". The Constitution (state or federal) is the foundation of the government and cannot be changed unless there is an overwhelming reason too. Look at what it takes to change the federal Constitution. . .2/3 majority in both houses plus 3/4 of the states.





It is the duty of the judicial branch to ensure that the people/legislature do not overstep their bounds and take away fundamental rights. Look at Brown v. Board or Loving.. Pure an simple: Separate is not equal. . .</blockquote>


If marriage is a right, then how can any state license it?
 
Secondly there is no discrimination against particular people. The actual discrimination occurs in the definition of marriage. The exisitng definition (upheld by the new retarded prop 8.) is a union between male and female. A homosexual person can still enter into a marriage contract with a person as long as that person is of the opposite sex. The definition of marriage is what needs to be altered to reflect the union of 2 persons irrespective of gender.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1226457352]

Whatever happened to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state">Separation of Church and State</a> ?</blockquote>


The idea of ?Separation of Church and State? is not enshrined in any document of legal force (although some variations have been used in dicta); it comes from language in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson describing the Establishment Clause of First Amendment (as it appears you are well aware). The Establishment Clause simply prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.



The idea that people are not free to vote based on religious ideas or that churches/mosques/temples can?t have political points of view is completely wrong. In fact, the entire premise of the United States, as stated in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, is profoundly religious.



[quote author="Trooper" date=1226457352] No, three sheets. I want to be visible to the greater community, since so many of us are not ?out? and many claim not to know a homosexual. I want to express my displeasure and let off some steam. I want to make people SEE me....see who it actually affected...and show you that even though you ?won? this round, we will never give up.

We will win eventually. Hopefully I?ll live to see it. </blockquote>


First - it's not a victory for me... Second, I agree with your assessment. The only way to change people's minds on the issue is to show them that you are a normal person and not that "leather wearing" freak at gay pride parades that you mention the media pays attention to.
 
<em>First - it?s not a victory for me? Second, I agree with your assessment. The only way to change people?s minds on the issue is to show them that you are a normal person and not that ?leather wearing? freak at gay pride parades that you mention the media pays attention to.</em>



I have to tell you, of the 12,500 people protesting at the Silver Lake event on Saturday....I only saw ONE drag queen. Guess who the media found, photographed and interviewed for the nightly news feed. Yup, you guessed it. Sigh.



Am I "normal" enough?



<img src="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v229/1518/30/n597118468_6075.jpg" alt="" />
 
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><strong>Schwarzenegger: Fight For Gay Marriage Continues</strong></span>



<em>California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said Sunday that the fight for gay marriage was not over in California and suggested the state supreme court may in fact overturn Proposition 8.



"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said of the measure's passage in a CNN interview, "because I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back to the supreme court and all this, because the supreme court very clearly in California has declared this unconstitutional. It?s the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This is -- this falls into the same category. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."



Schwarzenegger's comments could mark a change in the governor's relationship with the issue of same-sex marriage, which he has mostly kept at arm's length in the past. Although the governor publicly voiced his opposition to the gay marriage ban, he fell far short of championing the issue and <strong>twice vetoed gay marriage bills passed by the state legislature</strong>, saying the issue was the province of the courts.



Geoff Kors of Equality California and No on Prop. 8 said the governor has not been in contact with the organization since Election Day. (The Advocate)</em>



TWICE, with the stroke of a pen, he had the opportunity to give us marriage. This man is talking out of both sides of his face.... typical, for a politician I suppose.
 
[quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a>
 
[quote author="three sheets" date="1226460343



IrvineCommuter, I don't disagree with you in a general sense. However, the profound fact that you failed to acknowledge is that the SCOTUS has explicitly refused to grant protected status to homosexuals - and therefore, a "separate but equal" system does not run afoul of the federal equal protection clauses. Therefore, the people of California are free to determine which homosexual rights they want to acknowledge in the state constitution, as long as the resulting discrimination has a "rational basis." The SCOTUS has previously indicated (and some justices have expressly stated) that upholding a traditional view of marriage is "rational.



Put another way, I agree with you that the federal constitution is difficult to amend, however, homosexual marriage is a right not guaranteed by the federal constitution. Therefore, when a state finds that its own constitution guarantees a right to homosexual marriage (as did the California Supreme Court), the only way that right can be changed is by amendment of the state constitution. And whether anyone likes it or not, the California constitution may be amended by a majority vote of the people - or as you put it, simple democracy.?



Also, since you brought it up, the SCOTUS has specifically found that Loving does not apply to homosexual marriage. To boot, lower federal courts ruling on homosexual marriage have routinely interpreted the fundamental right to marry under Loving as arising from the right to procreate....</blockquote>


Legally, the California supreme court has recognized homosexuals as a "protected class" and invalidated Prop. 22 based upon a strict scrutiny analysis.



Socially/morally (for me), homosexuals are a "protected class".



Second, the term "Amendment" is misleading in the context of the California constitution since "amendment" means minor changes where the term "revision" represents major changes. Prop 8 is a "revision" not an "amendment"



<a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1226036505.shtml">http://volokh.com/posts/1226036505.shtml</a>
 
[quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460751]Secondly there is no discrimination against particular people. The actual discrimination occurs in the definition of marriage. The exisitng definition (upheld by the new retarded prop 8.) is a union between male and female. A homosexual person can still enter into a marriage contract with a person as long as that person is of the opposite sex. The definition of marriage is what needs to be altered to reflect the union of 2 persons irrespective of gender.</blockquote>


That is the same argument made by people against interracial marriage. Black people can marry so long as they marry other blacks. . .vice versa for whites.



There is deprivation of a person's right at issue here.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226464165][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?</blockquote>


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."



LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226464686][quote author="WINEX" date=1226464165][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?</blockquote>


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."



LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)</blockquote>


I'm sorry. I should have asked what I was interested in more clearly. I was interested in a US Supreme Court ruling that says that marriage is a right. None of the rulings you cited appear to do so.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226465154][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226464686][quote author="WINEX" date=1226464165][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226463786][quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1226460491]



I don't believe marriage is an "unalienable right." The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, <strong>without due process of law</strong>. So apparently they can if due process is used.</blockquote>


The California Supreme Court and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to marriage is a "fundamental right" (i.e. "unalienable right")



Proposition process does not equal due process. . .takes too long to explain, see:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_in_U.S._Constitution</a></blockquote>


Would you care to share that US Supreme Court ruling on marriage with me?</blockquote>


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."



LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)</blockquote>


I'm sorry. I should have asked what I was interested in more clearly. I was interested in a US Supreme Court ruling that says that marriage is a right. None of the rulings you cited appear to do so.</blockquote>


I am a little confused. . .when the USSC describes marriage as a "basic civil right" and a "fundamental freedom", it seems like a fundamental right to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top