(warning: if you've sensitive eyes to naughty words, move on)
As of about eighteen minutes ago Prop 8 was upheld.
BUT, the 18,000 marriages performed while it was still legal are also upheld. So at least there's that. Better than nothing (I can't imagine).
I still don't understand the logic of "sex is only okay within the bonds of marriage [not "civil unions"], so because we cannot make 'sodomy' illegal anymore, we'll just make sure the gays can't get married."
Am I wrong there? At all?
The debate right now is when to time the next battle: 2010 or 2012 when they'll have the presidential election on their side (= greater turnout)
Nobody is truly surprised, but many are disappointed, especially given the events of the past few months with Iowa and Connecticut and other states which have legalized gay marriage. As my husband points out, however, this decision was not about legalizing gay marriage so much as it was deeming Prop 8 constitutional as a ballot measure, if this was a matter of amending the constitution or a constitutional revision.
And the judges by a 6-1 vote said it was constitutional.
But time is only on the side of the Prop 8 opposition.
Here's a bit of a news interview I just saw:
Reporter: "We're going to turn to someone who is in support of Prop 8. George Riley. Good morning. You know we've seen you out here since six a.m., how do you feel now knowing that the judges have supported Prop 8?"
Riley: "Well I feel like justice was finally served. This is the third time that we've had the people vote and the people for the third time have said yes. We believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether or not people like that or not, that's what the people want. So if there was anything else besides that, I'd have to say that the judges were trying to play lawmakers from the bench."
He went on to say that he feels Prop 8 opponents have a vendetta against Christianity.
Everything is about the Christians. If Christianity isn't being persecuted, someone will ensure Christians at least feel persecuted. Newsflash: this is only about the Christian religion inasmuch as they make it about the Christian religion.
As for "activist judges": People need to read their history books more often. I'm no historian, but I learned enough in the past semester of U.S. History to know that Supreme Court judges tend to do one of two things on occasion:
(a) Judge very poorly (see the Dred Scott decision)
(b) Judge against the majority (see Interracial Marriage. Loving v. Virginia)
One of the purposes of the Constitution of the United States is to protect the minority from the majority's whims. For so long (even into the '60s I believe) the majority felt interracial marriage was wrong. The majority isn't always right.
The Supreme Court justices are not there to represent the majority. They are there to act neutral, unbiased, to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land, and sometimes it doesn't turn out as we'd like.
And that's why we have a system. There's always next time.
Again: this is not about legalizing or de-legalizing gay marriage. This is about the constitutionality of Prop 8--revision v. amendment. The Court found it was a perfectly legal amendment in need of no more than a simple 50% + 1 majority.
I respectfully disagree.
As other states have found, the right to marry is a civil right. It's in the books. Go look it up.
People don't have to agree with it. It's none of their business. But people do things all the time we don't "agree" with, but we pop our shoulders and we get over it. We understand nobody is forcing us to run out and have gay sex.
The opponents don't seem to have the same zeal regarding serial divorces. There’s no rallying against "no-fault marriages." They say (and by "they" I mean LDS leadership and membership) it's because straight marriages have the potential for celestial glory. By the way, this is also the LDS response to the point that the government once used similar rationale against polygamy--at least polygamy was between a man and, uhm, women.
That's fucked up.
The world will never be 100% LDS. And the LDS are not in charge, nor should they be. No religion should be.
Honestly I wish people would open a few books and consider different perspectives for a change. It doesn't hurt. I promise.
Marriage is a civil right. Not a basic human right like water and food and *cough* health care, but a civil right. A civil right is a right bestowed upon its people by its government (see 13th and 14th amendments)
I'll allow a minute for that to sink in.
And this is a government decision, not a religious decision. Nobody is going to force any church to marry a couple guys or a couple of girls. They don't force churches, especially the LDS church, to marry anyone--civilly or in the temple.
But apparently we can be coerced—a kind way to put it—into votes we weren’t sure we wanted to make in the first place (I know of a few people who would’ve voted differently)
Why more people don't understand this is completely beyond my comprehension.
Little hobo Bobo
18 hours ago