Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

[Csonicgo]

Hooray! http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

It still bothers me though that some conservatives (that claim to also have read the constitution) think that the majority should decide the rights of the minority, and that rights (and the restrictions thereof) should be put on public vote.

Maybe now USA can get back to its "Mind your Business" roots.

But I'm sure the US Supreme Court will 5-4 this and gay marriage will be banned everywhere as a result. Fuck Bush.

[fraggle]

Great news. These videos are from over a year ago but neatly summarise why prop 8 is unconstitutional, why the arguments against gay marriage are flawed, and what's likely to happen next once this gets to the Supreme Court:

[Sharessa]

Hoorgay!

[Wagi]

Call me uninformed, but I wasn't actually sure that people who petitioned to get a law passed were subject to the same checks and balances as an actual legislature.

[Csonicgo]

fraggle said:

Great news.

To extract the best part out of that video, here it is. Watch David Boies own the shit out of that bastard Tony Perkins: "The witness stand is a lonely place to lie"

Quoting a user on youtube, it's 70 seconds of bitch-smack.

[fraggle]

I recommend reading pages 37-40 of the ruling, it's a great examination of what the term "marriage" is held to mean in western society, with a humorous twist.

Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different.

[Snakes]

Csonicgo said:

But I'm sure the US Supreme Court will 5-4 this and gay marriage will be banned everywhere as a result. Fuck Bush.

This is dangerously possible and hypocritical in the worst kind of way. It just confuses me as to how people seem to think "small" government should apply only to the economic sector. How they somehow manage to twist the facts in such a way that the "left" in this country is the one leading us towards a 1984 society is totally bizarre.

Of course, these are the same people who want their goddamn social security and their God-given right medicare, and God willing, the government will keep their hands off it!

Also, that prop. 8 got passed in CA in the first place is disturbing. This is the most progressive state in the union? Fucking hell...

[fraggle]

Csonicgo said:

But I'm sure the US Supreme Court will 5-4 this and gay marriage will be banned everywhere as a result. Fuck Bush.

That's not possible, as I understand it. If it gets to the Supreme Court, it will either find prohibitions against same sex marriage to be constitutional or unconstitutional. If the former, then states will be allowed to continue denying marriage rights to same sex couples, but that won't make it "banned everywhere". Same sex marriage will still be possible in states where it is currently legal. On the other hand, if it is found unconstitutional, every state in the US will be compelled to grant equal rights to same sex couples.

At most, if laws like this are found to be constitutional, then other states may feel encouraged to pass similar laws (where they don't already have them).

[Aliotroph?]

Snakes said:

This is dangerously possible and hypocritical in the worst kind of way. It just confuses me as to how people seem to think "small" government should apply only to the economic sector. How they somehow manage to twist the facts in such a way that the "left" in this country is the one leading us towards a 1984 society is totally bizarre.

Of course, these are the same people who want their goddamn social security and their God-given right medicare, and God willing, the government will keep their hands off it!

Also, that prop. 8 got passed in CA in the first place is disturbing. This is the most progressive state in the union? Fucking hell...

The left (who are an awful lot like Canada's right) aren't helping make people any freer. They just pick different things to break.

The really disturbing part is anything less than a huge supermajority is permitted to change California's constitution. One of the checks you need in democracy is a check on democracy itself. People are stupid, and this is why California has no money for anything.

[Technician]

Csonicgo said:

Maybe now USA can get back to its "Mind your Business" roots.

Amen.

[Use]

Oh great, now they'll make us marry horses next.

[Technician]

Use3D said:

Oh great, now they'll make us marry horses next.

Most rednecks who oppose same sex unions probably already are.

[Vordakk]

Technician said:

Most rednecks who oppose same sex unions probably already are.

Those horses are chicks though, dude.

[Mr. T]

Finally CSG can get married. LOL

[Technician]

Vordakk said:

Those horses are chicks though, dude.

My mistake.

Anyone see the movie Zoo?

[Vordakk]

Technician said:

My mistake.

Anyone see the movie Zoo?

I read about it, but never saw it. It's about Mr. Hands, right? The funniest thing to me out of all that is that Seattle didn't have a law banning bestiality until the whole Kenneth Pinyan horse-fuck incident. Horse-fucking had been legal for 117 years!

[Stupid Bunny]

Wagi said:

Call me uninformed, but I wasn't actually sure that people who petitioned to get a law passed were subject to the same checks and balances as an actual legislature.

Congratulations, you have summed up everything that sucks about our direct democracy system!

Anyway, it always mystifies me when Rick Sanctimonious or whoever says "I hate to see a small number of activist judges impose their morality on the American people" moments before saying "I will be an activist president and impose my morality on the American people." The hypocrisy is so baldfaced it's unbelievable, and yet so many people don't seem to notice it...

[Reisal]

What happened to everything being equal?

[Fletcher`]

Mr. Chris said:

What happened to everything being equal?

What are you, communist?

[Technician]

Vordakk said:

I read about it, but never saw it. It's about Mr. Hands, right? The funniest thing to me out of all that is that Seattle didn't have a law banning bestiality until the whole Kenneth Pinyan horse-fuck incident. Horse-fucking had been legal for 117 years!

The doc isn't very good. It only has about a half-hour of substance stretched long, and it falls into much of today's modern documentary cliches.

[Phobus]

Mr. T said:

Finally CSG can get married. LOL

Damn it, you beat me to the joke :'(

[40oz]

When's the wedding!?

[Csonicgo]

fraggle said:

At most, if laws like this are found to be constitutional, then other states may feel encouraged to pass similar laws (where they don't already have them).

I admit I was trolling and it was a bit hyperbole, but this is what happens when you have 8 years of the decider, I forget we have a system of checks and balances.

The real problem is that there are conservatives that think that this will be a win for them in the Supreme Court.

[Gez]

Snakes said:

It just confuses me as to how people seem to think "small" government should apply only to the economic sector.

Because it's just a question of hierarchy in dignity.

What is the thing we value the most? The thing of which we make art to glorify, for which we make laws to protect? Is it human life, or money? Obviously it's money. The dignity and respect that money deserves means that intense scrutiny, constant questioning, and nitpicky regulations are just beneath its status. It's demeaning and obscene to make money endure such treatments.

Now, human life, that's just a tool to facilitate exchanges. We could imagine civilizations without human life -- in fact, we often have! But in practical terms, it's just the best agent we have, though we make do with it. But the problem with human life is that it can be used for all kinds of unethical things, like crimes against money or even gay sex. Ewww. How could anyone think that sex and gaiety should go together? Sex is just some unglamorous process through which more human lives are created, to be used for the purpose of benefiting money somehow. So it is very important to have a government that is extremely strict about what humans do with their lives, to make sure that they do nothing that could inconvenience money.

[Csonicgo]

Gez said:

Sex is just some unglamorous process through which more human lives are created, to be used for the purpose of benefiting money somehow. So it is very important to have a government that is extremely strict about what humans do with their lives, to make sure that they do nothing that could inconvenience money.

I couldn't have put it any better.

[printz]

I wish that Internet bills that attempt to break Amendments would also be ruled unconstitutional...

[Csonicgo]

printz said:

I wish that Internet bills that attempt to break Amendments would also be ruled unconstitutional...

If Prop 8 proved anything, is that you can pass anything if you push enough lies and misleading ads.

Remember, USA still has something called the "Defence of Marriage Act" that I still believe is unconstitutional, but whatever.