Response to CA Prop 8: Defining marriage

Tannim, I continue to be completely unimpressed by you and your inability to understand what other people have written and then make a coherent and consistent argument. This is the last time I will bother to waste my time on you.

First of all, if you don't want anybody to argue or disagree with you, why the heck are you here? If you want nothing but a touchy feely love session where everybody has the same warped views as you, call up your LP buddies and have a good ol' rap session with them. Otherwise, stop your sniveling about people arguing with you. And as far as not “winning” goes, I'm not quite sure what your definition of winning is. If your definition of winning is convincing the other person that you are right, then I've got news for you - you're not winning either. (Hope that doesn’t bring on more sniveling on your part!)

And as far as what the court based its decision on, the SC does repeatedly reference the US Constitution's equal protection clause, as well as equal protection clauses and cases from a host of other states. As a matter of fact, it even references the Loving and Lawrence cases you refer to. (By the way, the decisions in both these cases actually support my argument, not yours. Perhaps YOU should try reading them. In the first instance, the court broadened the definition of marriage, and in the second, the court threw out a state sodomy law. So as I've argued, courts tend to uphold broader definitions and homosexual rights. And neither case addressed religious freedom in regards to homosexuality or homosexual marriage, so these cases don’t prove whose rights would win out over whose.) You see, judges don't live in a bubble. They constantly look to precedent and what is happening in various courts. (For instance, they recognize the fact that a similar case was pending in Connecticut, which has since been decided.) While ultimately California law applies to California decisions, this is not all judges look at. The same is true at the federal level. That is why we have federal Supreme Court justices citing international law even though that law is supposed to be completely inapplicable here. Judges are human and look to other judges' opinions when writing their own opinions.

Which brings me to my next point. You assert that cases decided outside of California have no bearing on Californians. All you have to do is read court opinions to know that is a completely false claim. As I said before, judges look around them to see what other courts are deciding. Other state and federal court decisions DO play a role in the opinions put out by our courts.

And in case you didn't notice, I've been writing all of this for over a week, long before the Yes on 8 mailer arrived in anybody's mailbox. In fact, I only received that mailer yesterday. I am not affiliated with the Yes on 8 campaign in any way, shape or form. The fact that somebody else did the same research as I did and came to the same conclusions actually bolsters my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

As far as legal action goes, you are spinning yourself in circles again. You previously asked why legal action hasn't been taken against individuals and churches yet. I responded with the obvious "duh" answer that you should have been able to figure out yourself. Now you are citing legal action in regards to the description of the proposition. This action was taken by proponents of Prop. 8, not homosexual activists suing for their rights. Um, yeah, two entirely different things. But I won't waste my time trying to explain this simple difference to you if you don't get it already.

The medical ruling also proves my point. You are apparently unaware that California does have a religious "opt out" law for doctors. For instance, doctors cannot be forced to perform abortions if it violates their religious beliefs. However, when the doctors used their religious beliefs to refuse to perform artificial insemination of a lesbian, they were denied their religious rights. This is exactly my point. Once again, religious rights are denied in favor of other group rights. To say that a doctor gives up his or her religious rights when they enter the workplace is a very disturbing concept. That is like the schools telling students they lose their 1st Amendment rights while on campus. We should NEVER be willing to give up rights based on location - EVER! Your assertion to the contrary belies your obviously biased views in regards to the issue at hand. (And before you start up some inane argument about life issues, this doesn't apply to doctors treating life or death cases because that would be denying another person their right to life, which is paramount.) And are you really suggesting that every doctor who opposes certain medical practices based on religion should quit or leave? WOW! Good luck finding enough doctors to go around if this were to happen! Dr. Paul himself would never have been able to practice medicine!

And now for the citations which you seem to be so desperately craving (and in obvious need of). Enjoy!

"In its decision in Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a closely divided (four-to-three) vote,
declared that the proposed legislation would violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Massachusetts Constitution." (example of citing other states' court rulings)

"Although all parties in this proceeding agree that the right to marry
constitutes a fundamental right protected by the state Constitution, there is considerable disagreement as to the scope and content of this fundamental state constitutional right." (In other words, the Constitution doesn't define marriage. Prop. 8 is trying to rectify that situation.)

"Numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in discussing
marriage and the federal constitutional right to marry, similarly recognize that the significance of this right lies in its relationship to the establishment of a family. (See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 386)
[“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”]; Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform (1977) 431 U.S. 816, 843 [describing marriage as “[t]he basic foundation of the family in our society”].)"
(Not only an example of citing federal rulings, but this also lays out the precedent for the Prop. 8 argument.)

"As we noted in Hernandez, supra, 41 Cal.4th 279, 299, footnote 12: “In
applying the federal equal protection clause, the United States Supreme Court has applied a third standard — ‘intermediate scrutiny’ — ‘to discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy.’ (Clark v. Jeter (1988) 486 U.S. 456, 461.)” (Another example of citing the federal equal protection clause.)

"....either within the meaning of statutory prohibitions on sex discrimination or for purposes of the equal protection clauses or equal rights amendments contained within the federal and various state constitutions)" (ditto)

"...in discussing the factors that are relevant under the federal equal protection clause to the issue of suspect classification, the court explained:......." (ditto)

"....this court invalidated, as violative of federal equal protection principles, a state initiative measure that purported to overturn recently enacted state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing." (ditto)

Now what was that you were saying about not citing anything other than California law? Certainly the court's opinions must be based on and be in accordance with California law, but that does not preclude the judges from considering other precedents, laws, and state constitutions. That was my point, now backed up by citations. And now Tannim, I leave you to your whining. I'm out of here!

At the end of the day I am well aware of the fact that most of us will have to agree to disagree. We probably aren't going to change each other's minds here. This is largely because we are dealing with an issue where everybody is going to feel like somebody's rights are violated no matter what the decision is. That's never a happy situation to be in. I will make one final plea for my case though.

Since 1999, homosexual couples in California have had all legal benefits and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples. They have been able to live as they please without any more government interference than any of the rest of us have to put up with. They have been able to live together, get tax breaks, share insurance and other work benefits, have children, etc. Legally, a homosexual relationship was already equal under the law to a heterosexual relationship in every way shape and form. Of the 3 lesbian couples I know, I don't believe any of them ever felt oppressed in any way. They were supported in their lifestyles by both their families, friends, and communities. At the same time, because this relationship was called a civil union instead of a marriage, religious rights were also fully protected. If a church or other private establishment wanted to perform a union ceremony they were free to do so. At the same time, they did not have any legal obligations or threats involved if they chose not to. Considering government was involved at all, this is about as close as you are going to get to having the best of both worlds.

This summer's ruling has changed all this. Ideally, your rights end where mine begin. This ruling encroaches on this ideal. In fact, homosexual couples now have more legal rights than I do. For instance, I can be denied certain types of housing because I have children. Not every place wants children living in their establishment. I can understand this and it doesn't bother me. I believe a business has the right to make their own rules regarding who lives on their property. However, homosexuals can no longer be denied any type of housing, even if it is at a religious college. That is the very definition of special group rights, which is never a good thing.

The only real legal right homosexual couples have gained by this ruling is the right to sue anybody or anything who in any way appears to deny homosexuals equal access to anything, including marriage. And some groups have already threatened to do exactly that. This has the very real and great potential to seriously erode the freedom of religion and property rights. Considering the fact that not much is gained for homosexuals, it is a trade I am not willing to make. Whenever you talk about eroding individual freedom in order to grant group rights, it is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

In any case, we will know which way the wind blows in just 3.5 weeks.

Hide behind whomever Christian apologist again. I prefer that Solon guy myself. Common law over natural law, thank you very little!

Both "Hapsburg" and "Habsburg" are accepted as equivalent names. Go dig up Maxmillian I and ask him how HE spelled it.

Prop 8 does not get government out of marriage, WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT! It puts government INTO marriage, in a discriminatory manner that it does not belong in! Why? Not sexual activity, but because of gender! (How does one prove they are homosexual anyway short of the act itself?)

Let me try this one more time. If you don't get it then, you never will, and the rest of us will move on without you. I'll take it slow so you can understand it.

Government has a role in marriage why? To deal with tax and property issues. Those property issues included, in old times, family members who were considered property. Not in modern times, but it did back then. Marriage licenses were issued by the government so the government had a record of who was wed to who so if a property dispute came up, such as in an inheritance, the government as arbiter could sort it out. It was also used as a miscegenation tool to prevent mixed-race marriages (which was shot down in Loving v. Virginia). In modern times the property issues are dealt with through private contracts called pre-nups, wills, and government's role as arbiter comes into play as before, as well as a tax agent. But marriage licenses by government are still used as a discriminatory tool, but now for same-gender marriages. The "one-man-one-woman" argument is simple gender discrimination--Jane can marry Dick because she's a woman, but Tom can't because he's a man. Gender Discrimination 101 here, in private contracts, enforced by government.

So a court steps in (three of them, now) and says, no, government can't do that, the licenses still need to be issued without this discriminatory limit.

The government still has its role as a taxing agent here and as an arbiter, but that is the only role left. It no longer can play a discriminatory role, and all it can do now is play tax collector.

That's what marriage licenses are good for now--tax collection only. The next step to get government out of marriage, since they are now out of the gender discrimination game, is to get teh taxes assocaited with marriage removed as well. That's next.

When a marriage license is reduced to a worthless public piece of paper, it will go away. They used to not exist, and they really don't need to now.

Get it now? Removing the gender discrimination from marriage licenses removes the limits, and removes one more justification for having them in the first place, leaving only the tax issue left to remove.

Prop 22 was unconstitutional prima facie, and no vote of the people can enshrine in the law a violation of constitutional rights.

Go read the ruling before you comment, because you clearly don't understand the legalities at all.

I'm not sure how CA is, but in OH churches can turn anyone away that they do not want to marry. Sometimes they require you to be members of the church, or attend pre-marriage classes. The Catholic church can refuse to marry couples if they do not sign a paper saying they will raise their children in the Catholic church. I would find it hard to believe that CA would force a church to marry any two people regardless of their genders.

If gay marriage should not be allowed because it does not produce children, then what about infertile persons? Should they not be allowed to marry? If Adam and Eve were the prototype of marriage, then marriage was not created for procreation, but rather for companionship.

The government is allowing you to vote on what the definition of marriage is, so vote your conscience, but don't pretend you are voting to uphold the freedom of religion. You are legislating morals. "I don't want the government to tell me what marriage is. I want them to tell you."

And while I'm on my soapbox (it really doesn't happen that often), allow same sex couples and single parents to ADOPT!