As important as it is for people to have a voice in governing themselves. The pro prop 8 groups are fucking retarded.
"I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora's Box," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
FUUUUUUUCK YOOUUUU. I've also heard people say this opens the door to beastiality as well. You people make me furious. You feel this strongly about the bible that you are going to resort to saying that allowing same sex marriage would also open the door for polygamy Ironically, mormon (I'm not going to capitalize the "m," they don't deserve it) groups were some of the strongest supporters and bankrollers of prop 8.
"I don't see this as a fundamental rights issue but redefining the definition of marriage," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).
Technically he's right, dictionary.com's definition of marriage all include "man" and "woman"
The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."
"Very gererously provided?" Who the fuck are you (it was Ken Starr again btw). Hes basically saying, "damn, you gays don't stop asking for stuff, we already let you outside in the daytime, what more do you want?"
The sacrifices I make for blogging. I read articles like these and comment on them for you even though it will put me in a bad mood for hours.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Prop 8 in the news again
Prop 8 was in the news today as the California state supreme court met to hear arguments from lawyers though not about whether gay marriage should be legal but about the legality of voters deciding what is and isn't a "right."
Its an interesting question to discuss. Does the populous get to decide what a right is or should it be left to judges who are "legal and constitutional experts?"
The same judges who decided that outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional are having to decide again on essentially the same issue even though we just had an election to decide it.
Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer for the yes on 8 side says, "The people do have the raw power to define rights," Starr told the justices. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle." (Sidenote: Kenneth was the lead prosecuting lawyer in Clinton's impeachment trial and obviously missed the attention)
Shannon Minter, lead lawyer for the No on 8 side argues, "A simple majority cannot be permitted to take away rights from a historical disadvantaged minority without substantially altering the very operation and purpose of equal protection and the court's ability to fulfill its core constitutional function of enforcing equal protection."
Honestly, I'm really torn. Obviously I want gay people to be allowed to get married but that is not technically the issue. I do believe that the people can help decide what are "rights" and what aren't. We always here about the constitution being a "living" and "evolving" document so shouldn't we always be discussing and debating what a right is?
However, if we admit that people can decide what rights are, the people have made an odd choice with this election. The yes on 8 lawyers, by arguing that people get to decide what are rights, are basically saying that it is a right to sit anywhere on a bus but not to marry any person you want. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Ultimately, I think the Yes on 8 side will win and while I'll be disappointed in what the significance of the decision means, I do think that people have the right to have a hand in deciding what are rights and hopefully we'll see a proposition to overturn 8 in 4 years (and I can pretty much guarantee there will be).
All this means is the people who believe gay people should be allowed to get married have to get out there and convince people of it.
Its an interesting question to discuss. Does the populous get to decide what a right is or should it be left to judges who are "legal and constitutional experts?"
The same judges who decided that outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional are having to decide again on essentially the same issue even though we just had an election to decide it.
Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer for the yes on 8 side says, "The people do have the raw power to define rights," Starr told the justices. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle." (Sidenote: Kenneth was the lead prosecuting lawyer in Clinton's impeachment trial and obviously missed the attention)
Shannon Minter, lead lawyer for the No on 8 side argues, "A simple majority cannot be permitted to take away rights from a historical disadvantaged minority without substantially altering the very operation and purpose of equal protection and the court's ability to fulfill its core constitutional function of enforcing equal protection."
Honestly, I'm really torn. Obviously I want gay people to be allowed to get married but that is not technically the issue. I do believe that the people can help decide what are "rights" and what aren't. We always here about the constitution being a "living" and "evolving" document so shouldn't we always be discussing and debating what a right is?
However, if we admit that people can decide what rights are, the people have made an odd choice with this election. The yes on 8 lawyers, by arguing that people get to decide what are rights, are basically saying that it is a right to sit anywhere on a bus but not to marry any person you want. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Ultimately, I think the Yes on 8 side will win and while I'll be disappointed in what the significance of the decision means, I do think that people have the right to have a hand in deciding what are rights and hopefully we'll see a proposition to overturn 8 in 4 years (and I can pretty much guarantee there will be).
All this means is the people who believe gay people should be allowed to get married have to get out there and convince people of it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Gay marriage
So I started writing my post on religion last night and we had a mouse incident and I got about a page in and realized I wanted to write a lot more so I'm saving religion and starting off with a topic that I still care a lot about. Gay Marriage.
America is a great country because the constitution gives citizens the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom. In practice, this is far from what actually happens, there are many instances where people are not given a freedom they deserve.
Two people who want to marry, whatever their sex, can be married and not interfere with anyone else's rights. And by the Constitution, they should be able to do so.
The arguments against gay marriage do not stand up.
1. Homosexuality will diminish the sanctity of marriage.
Answer: Most of the time, people answer this by citing divorce rates among straight couples but that is really just icing on the cake. The real answer is that it doesn't matter, the right to decide who marries is not the job of the government or even the majority of citizens. The freedom to to anything which does not interfere with another's rights is how the law was mean to be interpreted.
2. Homosexuality is an abomination against god( it says so in the Bible)
This will be a similar argument. Just because many people are uncomfortable because of their religious beliefs, they can't deny them the right to marry in the eyes of the law.
But there are two sides to being free to recognize homosexuality. Individuals and institutions have the right to not recognize gay marriages. Non-governmental institutions have the right to condemn gay marriages until their blue in the face.
The idea of freedom is a pretty cool thing to think about. Two people can disagree about the exact same thing and both be right.
America is a great country because the constitution gives citizens the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom. In practice, this is far from what actually happens, there are many instances where people are not given a freedom they deserve.
Two people who want to marry, whatever their sex, can be married and not interfere with anyone else's rights. And by the Constitution, they should be able to do so.
The arguments against gay marriage do not stand up.
1. Homosexuality will diminish the sanctity of marriage.
Answer: Most of the time, people answer this by citing divorce rates among straight couples but that is really just icing on the cake. The real answer is that it doesn't matter, the right to decide who marries is not the job of the government or even the majority of citizens. The freedom to to anything which does not interfere with another's rights is how the law was mean to be interpreted.
2. Homosexuality is an abomination against god( it says so in the Bible)
This will be a similar argument. Just because many people are uncomfortable because of their religious beliefs, they can't deny them the right to marry in the eyes of the law.
But there are two sides to being free to recognize homosexuality. Individuals and institutions have the right to not recognize gay marriages. Non-governmental institutions have the right to condemn gay marriages until their blue in the face.
The idea of freedom is a pretty cool thing to think about. Two people can disagree about the exact same thing and both be right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)