Decision on Prop 8 pending

[Bei1052]

Do you deny that the constitution is a living document?

The Constitution as a living document is the dumbest idea ever concocted, as it's just a nice way to circumvent the amendment process. It is, after all, a hell of a lot easier to to make the Constitution say what you want it to say rather then amend it to say what you want it to say.

Anyway, someone is going to have to explain something to me. As a summary dismissal, Baker v. Nelson is still binding precedent, right? Therefore, how can bans on gay marriage violate the Constitution's due process clause, when SCOTUS dismissed Baker v. Nelson on account of them not feeling that it was a Constitutional issue? This decision is wrong for the right reasons, and I hope it gets overturned.

 

[dwaxe]

You seriously think that the Supreme Court circumventing the amendment process by ruling that interracial marriage bans are unconstitutional was merely "a dumb idea"? That the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was merely "a dumb idea"?

The history of Civil Rights in the United States is plastered with countless cases where the Supreme Court overturned previous interpretations of the Constitution. According to history, the Constitution is obviously a living document.

Baker v. Nelson is a 40-year-old case, and the Supreme Court's opinion has changed by 2010 (According to the Judge in this case).

 

[nonconformist]

Hahahhah, oh my god, I always love these threads, because it reminds me exactly how ******** America is...you people actualy have political capital based on who can screw who within what confines of what law
Good god, and people get up in arms about it, and actually vote about it? That's bloody hilarious.

Man, your country is so backwards you actually *had to have a civil rights movement* and now you have two sides to what is, undoubtedly, the most pathetic issue in politics for twenty years, considering you're involved in two wars, the worst economic downturn in three decades, rampant unemployment, drugs propblems, poverty, and a world that's falling apart, yet the most important issue is "well, they both have penises, this can't be good"

Hahaha, Europe just laughs at you; this isn't even an issue here. Come to think of it, I don't think any European political party that's not NAzi even has a policy regarding gay marriage

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, the silver lining on this issue is that it seems that America has so little problems with everything that this non-issue has become such a big deal. It truly is a great country that can afford to be bothered by such trivialities.

 

[Bei1052]

You seriously think that the Supreme Court circumventing the amendment process by ruling that interracial marriage bans are unconstitutional was merely "a dumb idea"? That the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was merely "a dumb idea"?

The history of Civil Rights in the United States is plastered with countless cases where the Supreme Court overturned previous interpretations of the Constitution. According to history, the Constitution is obviously a living document.

If correcting an erroneous decision is the same thing as basing one's decisions on the political/cultural tides of the time and inventing rights that never existed prior then, yes, the Constitution is obviously a living document.

Baker v. Nelson is a 40-year-old case, and the Supreme Court's opinion has changed by 2010 (According to the Judge in this case).

If I played around with the logic generally used by some people around here (and elsewhere), then this issue should have been a matter of settled law long ago.

 

[warpus]

Uh..wrong. Contrary to belief gays can get married to an opposite sex partner, and through history many have indeed done so. This hasnt changed one bit in the majority of states. What is prohibited, just like polygamy before it, is same sex marriage. That prohibition, in the states that still do prohibit it, is applied equally amongst all citizens.

This is in essence what really makes this argument different that the race marriage issue.

Uhh no MobBoss, because you could argue that a ban on interracial marriage is equal the same way you just argued that a ban on gay marriage is equal for everyone: everyone would be free to marry a person of their own skin colour - making the law the same for everyone.

 

[MobBoss]

Hahahhah, oh my god, I always love these threads, because it reminds me exactly how ******** America is...you people actualy have political capital based on who can screw who within what confines of what law
Good god, and people get up in arms about it, and actually vote about it? That's bloody hilarious.

Man, your country is so backwards you actually *had to have a civil rights movement* and now you have two sides to what is, undoubtedly, the most pathetic issue in politics for twenty years, considering you're involved in two wars, the worst economic downturn in three decades, rampant unemployment, drugs propblems, poverty, and a world that's falling apart, yet the most important issue is "well, they both have penises, this can't be good"

Hahaha, Europe just laughs at you; this isn't even an issue here. Come to think of it, I don't think any European political party that's not NAzi even has a policy regarding gay marriage

Hahaha, the UK doesnt have gay marriage either. kthxbye.

 

[El_Machinae]

And seeing as how California already has a civil union law, this simply isnt about rights...its about a single word. That word being: marriage.

Well, when there're actually equal rights for homosexual marriages compared to heterosexual marriages, then you'll maybe have a point.

But while the unequality of rights continues to exist, then changing the word is a short-path method of making the right equal. And, opposition to the change without increased agitation for equality through other mechanisms continues to be an effort to prevent the equalisation of rights.

 

[Haseri]

Actually, Mob, now that we have a gay-friendly party in quasi-power (the Lib-Dems), it looks as though same-sex marriage could be possible before the Con-Libs exist in 2015. Here.

So, we might not be there, but at least we're moving towards it.

 

[Merkinball]

You seriously think that the Supreme Court circumventing the amendment process by ruling that interracial marriage bans are unconstitutional was merely "a dumb idea"? That the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was merely "a dumb idea"?

The history of Civil Rights in the United States is plastered with countless cases where the Supreme Court overturned previous interpretations of the Constitution. According to history, the Constitution is obviously a living document.

Baker v. Nelson is a 40-year-old case, and the Supreme Court's opinion has changed by 2010 (According to the Judge in this case).

There's no need for an amendment process for any of those decisions as they are directly reflected in the constitution at one spot or another. I don't see why anybody would waste time arguing the point.

 

[Arwon]

Actually, Mob, now that we have a gay-friendly party in quasi-power (the Lib-Dems), it looks as though same-sex marriage could be possible before the Con-Libs exist in 2015. Here.

So, we might not be there, but at least we're moving towards it.

The other trick is that not all civil unions are the same. In NZ, de facto relationship = marriage = civil union, and in Australia we almost have marriage equality through the fact that same sex couples get recognised as de facto and de facto is virtually the same as marriage under the law here.

However, in America with its federalism, civil unions cannot be equal to marriage because of all the federal laws and different state systems, some of whom don't recognise civil unions.

 

[NovaKart]

America is a lot bigger than Austria and therefore the political system is more complex. According to a poll only 49% of people in Austria favor same-sex marriage so it's hardly universal there either. Homophobia in Eastern Europe makes America look benign. And you want to talk about racism? Europe certainly has plenty of that.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Are you confusing nonconformist (Frenchman living in the UK) with Holy King (who's avatar and user title he acquired for April 1st)?

 

[NovaKart]

I personally have a stake in this issue so this is an exciting time for me. Part of me hopes this goes to the supreme court but it's a risky bet. In my state, many companies don't even give benefits to same sex couples, it specifically mentions it on the insurance form. This really affects people's lives, that's something a lot of people don't understand. They think it's just about validation from others.

There was a lot of misinformation spread around to get people to vote for prop 8. Some people said that ministers would be forced to marry gay couples or they would go to jail. Others said that gay marriage would be taught in classrooms. None of this was true.

 

[NovaKart]

Are you confusing nonconformist (Frenchman living in the UK) with Holy King (who's avatar and user title he acquired for April 1st)?

Yeah I don't post here often enough to keep up with everyone especially if they start switching their titles. It says his location was Austria and unfortunately, I didn't use my special powers of clairvoyance to find out otherwise. Anyway, it's rich having a Frenchman lecturing someone about racism. They may have more of a leg to stand on with the homophobia issue though.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, when there're actually equal rights for homosexual marriages compared to heterosexual marriages, then you'll maybe have a point.

Well, I happen to think I have a point right now, and its actually a very pertinent one. As has been pointed out before, most of those 'rights' have either been addressed on a state level in many states, or resolved via the appropriate legal documents. And whatever gap there is there is narrowing daily.

But while the unequality of rights continues to exist, then changing the word is a short-path method of making the right equal.

Then I guess my point is that the short path way of doing things isnt being very effective.

And, opposition to the change without increased agitation for equality through other mechanisms continues to be an effort to prevent the equalisation of rights.

So, we should just have another civil war over it like we did slavery?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Please do, that would be hilarious.

 

[MobBoss]

Please do, that would be hilarious.

Yeah,....because the civil war was just a great big comedy fest.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well it didn't affect me so /shrug.

If you have a civil war it might stop you invading any other countries for a while too. And the pro-gay rights army would have fabulous outfits.

 

[dwaxe]

If correcting an erroneous decision is the same thing as basing one's decisions on the political/cultural tides of the time and inventing rights that never existed prior then, yes, the Constitution is obviously a living document.

Obviously you are the singular genius who should demarcate what rights belong to who. Bei1052 alone knows what past, present, and future rulings are erroneous! In contrast, our judiciary is a bunch of activist idiots who have not the slightest clue about the Constitution in comparison to our newfound leader!

I call upon all rational human beings to submit to our new supreme moral leader!

ALL HAIL BEI1052. ALL HAIL BEI1052. ALL HAIL BEI1052...