What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Special Comment: Proposition 8

  • Thread starter DrWurm
  • Start date

DrWurm

Californian in DC
This is why I, a straight male, voted no on prop 8. Tonight Keith Olbermann put aside his partisanship and appealed to the nation as simply a human being. Warning: thick with emotion.

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27652443#27652443" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
 
This is why I, a straight male, voted no on prop 8. Tonight Keith Olbermann put aside his partisanship and appealed to the nation as simply a human being. Warning: thick with emotion.

I didn't have a horse in that race either, but I honestly believe that the "success" of Proposition Eight was more a referendum on the megalomaniacal conduct of California judges -- particularly those of the Ninth Circuit, here in Northern California -- than on the actual subject of gay marriage; had the court not overreached so many time in the past, reversing the will of the voters, on so many issues, I don't believe it would have passed.

I would watch the posted video but I suffer from chronic Olbermann intolerance with much the same effect as that of lactose . . .
 
Well, if those megalomaniacal judges had overreached the majority on the issue of an interracial marriage ban, is that still a valid argument? Perhaps they saw that in this case, the majority was wrong.

Those who voted yes because the "people had already spoken" don't quite understand the concept of democracy.
 
Im really torn on this issue..
because it clashes on two positions I feel strongly about:

1. liberals really DO use the courts to try to pass laws "the people" (majority) are against..
I think this is a very bad thing..the people should decide laws, not judges.
so in that sense, I think what happened with prop 8 was "the right thing"..
it was a case of democracy working properly..to cut down a ruling that should have never been made,
because it was made improperly..(how did judges get all this power anyway??)

2. gays SHOULD totally have the right to marry! im sorry "the people" of California dont see it that way..yet..

All we can do is wait for the older generations to die off..
IMO, its really the exact same thing as racial prejudice..
"The people" just elected a black president..which I never expected to see in my lifetime!
Gay rights will also eventually reach the same point..true equality for all.
We just need to wait for the majority to get with the program..

and before anyone says "maybe the majority is right?"
"the majority" also once supported slavery, lack of womens rights, segregation, etc etc..
just because its the majority, doesnt mean its right..

Scot
 
Before this explodes. Might I ask posters to ignore certain comments that are purely inflammatory and focus on the real issues.

Thanks
-Jason
 
Well, if those megalomaniacal judges had overreached the majority on the issue of an interracial marriage ban, is that still a valid argument? Perhaps they saw that in this case, the majority was wrong.

Even if you think that majority is wrong (and I do in this case)
what gives judges the right to over-ride the majority?

Im really curious..because this is happening all over the country..
how can judges have this power?
since when do judges get to dictate laws?
(apart from the Supreme court of course..thats different)

when did this happen? and why?
its a very very bad thing..regardless of what lofty ideals these judges might be supporting.

if it was conservative judges trying to pass their own laws that the majority didnt support, like say, banning stem cell research or whatever, bypassing the proper lawmakers and voting procedures, you just know liberals would be up in arms about it, calling it improper..
and it is...its just as wrong in this case too..

how can judges do this?
anyone have the history on this concept?

Scot
 
Well, if those megalomaniacal judges had overreached the majority on the issue of an interracial marriage ban, is that still a valid argument? Perhaps they saw that in this case, the majority was wrong.

Well, you could look at it that way, but if amendments to the California State Constitution allow for the input and alteration by the hoi polloi as the document itself states, then it will be up to the swarms of lawyers and the California State Supreme Court to hash it out.

Those who I knew who were supporters of Proposition 8 -- many of whom, by the way, are in the legal profession -- didn't give a rat's *** (nor do I) about gay marriage; it was the overreaching courts that they had an issue with. It would seem that 3-5% of our state's population were collateral damage in that argument. Regrettable . . .
 
Maybe because they saw that the majority was supporting something that, while it may be a constitutional gray area, is against the intention of our constitution. I can't speak to the other cases you are unhappy about. But in this case, the constitution clearly intends to give equality to ALL people.

Those judges upheld our greatest American value: All Men Are Created Equal.
 
Maybe because they saw that the majority was supporting something that, while it may be a constitutional gray area, is against the intention of our constitution. I can't speak to the other cases you are unhappy about. But in this case, the constitution clearly intends to give equality to ALL people.

Those judges upheld our greatest American value: All Men Are Created Equal.

That is precisely why some specialize in the vagaries of constitutional law. Ultimately, the vote will probably be overturned by Sacramento as a violation of the "equal protection clause" down the line; but the axe will have to come from the State Supreme Court and not the laughing stock of the Ninth Circuit . . .
 
  • #10
You know what I would find wonderfully poetic and ironic? If this went all the way to the US supreme court, and they overturned it. Then it'd apply to every state. The yes-on-8 supporters would've constitutionally doomed their cause across the country XD.
 
  • #11
You know what I would find wonderfully poetic and ironic? If this went all the way to the US supreme court, and they overturned it. Then it'd apply to every state. The yes-on-8 supporters would've constitutionally doomed their cause across the country XD.


Miscegenation laws are one thing and California eliminated theirs in 1948, but the real likelihood of the of the Supreme Court ever taking up gay marriage is a serious long shot . . .
 
  • #12
I applaud the sensible and decent people posting here in defence of equality. I think Dr. Wurm put it best in his 2nd to last sentance.

"Stuff" like this:
Ha Ha Ha!!!
This is truly pathetic.
Omar Chaiyam (sp?) was a womanizer. Kinda Persian version of Casanova (medieval Persian version... so its kinda very limited one ). So how does this relate to gay marriages? He lived centuries ago in Persia, when there was not even a though of such horrible things, and those who were found to be gay were executed.
God is love, but also justice and order. Does Christianity forbid death penalties? If you think that, you better dig yourself into some books. It forbids murder, that is unlawful, undeserved killing. With "peace and love" thing and "whatever floats your boat" there will be only chaos and anarchy - the opposite of God or almost any other religion. Is there equality even in the divine realm? If you think that, dig into some books. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all state there are different "levels of society" if you will, in heaven and hell.
So why should everything be on the same level here? Especially this, which is against the very nature of this world! This is a n abomination tarnishing the moral fabric of the society.
The history is filled with injustices such as slavery, wars, political persecutions etc, but this is in no way unjust. It is just unnatural.
Slavery though seems to be a part of the past, but it is only an illusion. There will always be slaves and slave owners. They may be called differently or be under a different sauce, but it is always there.

Sad, pathetic, absolutely pointless and worthless speech with as much substance to it as a soap bubble.
I applaud the morally untarnished people who oppose this abomination.

P.S.
An interesting though.
As you probably know, ancient languages did not all use the same numerical system before the introduction of "arabic" numbers (which actually came from India). They used letters of their alphabets instead. So if you take Obama's middle name and transfer them into slavonic numbers, you get the following sequence: 3 400 200 5 8 50. Add them up, you get 666.
Just a though.
is pure stupidity, and in my sense the gravest form of cruelty: injustice. take your jesus glasses off and read your own damn books. They are about LOVE. CARING. How to live YOUR live, not your neighbors or people you never meet. And the last bit about obama is insane. If you used the time it took you to research that into practical means the world would have a cure for cancer. I cannot belive this prejudace thought wave still exists. Apologies decent folk, i just had to address this.
 
  • #13
I applaud the sensible and decent people posting here in defence of equality. I think Dr. Wurm put it best in his 2nd to last sentance.

"Stuff" like this:
is pure stupidity, and in my sense the gravest form of cruelty: injustice. take your jesus glasses off and read your own damn books. They are about LOVE. CARING. How to live YOUR live, not your neighbors or people you never meet. And the last bit about obama is insane. If you used the time it took you to research that into practical means the world would have a cure for cancer. I cannot belive this prejudace thought wave still exists. Apologies decent folk, i just had to address this.

I agree with you on that, and it is for this reason that I think Christianity as a whole has gone to Hell and refuse to participate in it for any reason whatsoever.
 
  • #14
The time it took me to research this was about... 10 seconds as I am fluent in it. So cancer research was not influenced in any way whatsoever.
Equality is a myth, it was never true, it will never be. Take off the pink glasses.
How about putting all the effort you put into gay right into cancer research? Eh?
Peace! Love! Equality! Caring! Come on!
 
  • #15
because to me it's more important that I'm accepted as a person before I die than for me to have my cancer cured if I ever happen to get it.
 
  • #16
Equality is a myth

And this is were we differ...tell that to all the people who have suffered through inequality and now see their children playing with children of their "suppresors". Tell me those people dont feel they are equal.
I cannot belive so much _____ resides in one person...
 
  • #17
Even if you think that majority is wrong (and I do in this case)
what gives judges the right to over-ride the majority??

Protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Heck, if there was a vote that passed on anything else that is not in the spirit of the Constitution, I'd expect them to overturn it.
Note: I don't support the arbitrary passing of laws which circumvent Democracy as we have it set up, but if there is a Prop that is passed that is inherently illegal/unconstitutional, I want the people who know (and the people who we have elected) to make sure that it isn't instated.

I can see each side of the coin, but voting Yes to show those dern judges what's what is poor reasoning at best. If something's blatantly wrong, I'd want my lower courts to take care of it so that the Supreme Court doesn't need to waste it's time one it (even if it's "just" the State SC.)

Equality is a myth, it was never true, it will never be. Take off the pink glasses.

You are certainly among the most jaded individuals whom I've ever encountered. Just because inequality exists, we should accept it? Proliferate it? Or is that just when it's convenient? What about if next time around there's a Prop that calls for the banning of Christianity (or all religions) from the state of California? Do you just sit and say "Shucks- inequality exists, so it's no skin off of my nose." ???

It goes back to your comments in this thread about the death penalty. Sure, you love the death penalty, torture, whatever it takes so long as it's your values that are upheld. What about when the tables turn and it's your values that are being persecuted?

Something worth thinking about.
 
  • #19
How about putting all the effort you put into gay right into cancer research? Eh?
Peace! Love! Equality! Caring! Come on!

Why don't YOU put the effort that you put in to hating a group of people into finding a cure for cancer? Why can't you just let other people live their own life?
 
  • #20
And out of curiosity:

Is there anyone out there who isn't familiar with the Proposition 8? We're going on the premise that everyone has heard of it, is that a fair assumption? I'm not sure how much water it's stirred outside of Cali (I assume it's a fair amount considering how many people know about it.) Anyone need a rundown?
 
Back
Top