I am left shocked, speechless and appalled by the actions of the California State Supreme Court. Are we going to rewrite the Declaration of Independence next. You can’t change the Constitution, you can only amend it to include rights, not remove them. We are guaranteed certain inalienable rights and you cannot take them away by voting in an unjust law, that is called tyranny. The very principles this country was founded on that “All Men Are Created Equal” is being questioned by this law. I don’t care if you are for gay rights or against them, this goes beyond that. The War of Independence started with demonstrations of civil disobedience because of unjust laws and unfair taxes. The implications of this ruling are enormous. It means that at anytime, as long as they have the votes, they can change the Ca. State Constitution to remove anyone’s rights, women, people of color, children and anyone else the majority doesn’t approve of. The next step would be of course, the United States Constitution, and it will come to that. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and All Men Are Created Equal is about to fly out the window people, wake up and see the big picture not just your religious and moral preferences. If one group of people’s rights can be removed then so can yours or mine and that includes religious freedom as well. These documents use to stand for something great and many have died to protect the rights they bestowed on us, don’t let them change it.
passions and soapboxes 
Scary times we live in… I try not to think about and yet, how can you not?!
Hmmm….and yet Prop 8 doesn’t remove what is there, it denies what should not be. Minor point, but important.
If the Constitution is to be our ultimate source for figuring out what is right and wrong, I suspect we will have quite a few more of these court battles to fight.
I respect that you disagree. I don’t believe it is a matter of right and wrong but a matter of rights, equal rights. People voted and the law changed, I may not agree with the law but I agree with the right of the majority to create the law. Not every law ammends the state constitution but this one does and that is what I object to. It is a slippery slope when we use the state constitution to back up a law that removes basic civil rights from one group, how long before it is used to remove those rights from other groups. I feel it sets a dangerous precident that we will come to regret.
I agree! It’s absolutely a dangerous precedent to change laws and regulations that have been in place for a long time. One of my basic arguments against SSM is just that!
Of course it’s a matter of right and wrong: you believe it’s wrong to deny certain people certain rights, while I’d say it’s right. I understand your position, but think (as you do) that we’re starting down a slippery slope. When Anna decides that she wants to marry her sister, or when John and Katherine and Boris and Judy decide on a polygamous union, what ground can we possibly stand upon to deny them when we’ve allowed Bill and Chuck to be married?
As far as Anna and her sister and the rest of the gang there are already laws in place to deal with them and no one amended the constitution to do it. If this is a just law, a right thing, then why do you want to amend the constitution to back it up. The whole purpose of that document is to protect civil rights, not remove them. The law has already passed, it is unnecessary to change the constitution as well.
I think you’re missing my point, which is that if we begin to change documents to allow for things like SSM (which CA had to do to ALLOW it in the first place), then you will eventually deal with Anna and her situation, along with the guy that thinks it’s integral to his happiness that he marry his German Shepherd. Laws may be changed, and Constitutions may be amended, and all that is needed in this country is a majority of voters- which was done, and still, it’s not enough for many people. When you have a document that is incomplete, manmade, and fallible as your source of what is right and wrong, you’re going to deal with major problems…and it becomes only a matter of time before we face Anna and her ilk.
You could be right, I know you are looking to the future possibilities and consequences and you are concerned, that is good. The thing is, maybe because I’m older, I am looking at the mistakes and consequences of the past. I grew up in a time of segregation and women without equal rights. I remember whites only signs and women being treated like children by their husbands. I realize that the world in general is not ready to take this particular leap forward, I just wish we didn’t have to take a step backward instead, and I do see it as a step backward. As you said once you open the door and let a few in, the others will demand their rights too, unfortunately that works both ways. You take one step back and it is soon to be followed by many other steps, history has shown this to be true. Maybe I am willing to risk having to recognize the rights of groups I might not approve of in order to keep the rights I fought so hard to obtain.
The issues of the past, like segregation and equal rights for women, have one glaring difference from SSM. Issues of race and gender are issues which people cannot control- one can’t control the color of skin you’re born in, for example (unless you’re Michael Jackson :)). Sexual behavior, however, is absolutely something over which we have control. We choose sexual partners based on many different factors, but ultimately, it is an issue of behavior- which I was getting at with the polygamy or incest issue.
I’m not sure I agree that society takes steps backward in rights. If anything the US is much more liberal now than 50 years ago- my mom was required to wear gloves to church, for example. Unless we’re talking Taliban, the tendency is quite clearly to extend rights, rather than limit them. We’ll see what Obama does- we might end up in 8 years with quite a few less than we have now!
You honestly think a person can choose to be gay, from the few gay people I have known the answer would be no. Unless your asking them to be celibate or go back to lying and hiding. I feel we have gone off track here and are discussing the right and wrong of being gay. My issue was that if the people who wrote prop 8 thought this law was constitutional they would not have needed to amend the constitution to make it so. Gay rights wanted to use the constitution to make it right and prop 8 people want to use it to make it wrong. I see this as a matter of law, not social, moral or religious purpose. Changing the constitution to reflect the current social discrimination takes away the power of the original principals and ideals that this country was founded on, equality. To make it a constitutional right to discriminate because of current social, moral, or religious beliefs is to make it legal to discriminate against anyone just because you don’t approve of them. This is a dangerous precedent no matter what side your on and is a big step backward.
No, that’s not what I said. I said a person can choose his or her *behavior*, which is different. Surely we’d agree that many people have tendencies and impulses that are unhealthy- overeating, alcoholism, etc. Just because they may be “natural” doesn’t make them right. That has very little to do with the law, however- which deals with a definition: marriage = man+woman. Domestic partnerships are a whole other kettle of fish.
Discussing the right or wrong of something is exactly what legislation does. Not sure how you can discuss any law or amendment without dealing with right and wrong.
“To make it a constitutional right to discriminate because of current social, moral, or religious beliefs is to make it legal to discriminate against anyone just because you don’t approve of them”
That’s not what I, nor the people behind this legislation, have been saying at all. It has nothing to do with my approval or disapproval- and this is where a lot of pro-gay people get hung up. My personal judgment of a person’s way of life has nothing in the least to do with legislation. THAT would be dangerous.
What would you do, for example, with the Muslim who wants to be legally married to his four wives, which is a religious right within his system of belief? Would you say that the government is dangerously discriminatory in this case, as well?
First you are still discussing the right to be gay and what’s with the dog, you keep bringing up that poor dog.The facts as I see it are these.
1. The law changed to allowed SSM
2. The law changed again and now the law is against SSM. Those who disagree can work to change it back because that is how a democracy works. And so on.
3. However, this law will rewrite the Ca. state constitution which I deem to be unnecessary, not the law just the need to rewrite the constitution.
4. When those in favor of SSM wanted to rewrite the same document I said it was unnecessary then too.
5. The question up for debate here is not if the law is a good one or a bad one or if it is okay to be gay. It is wither or not the law should rewrite the constitution to make it a constitutional right to deny rights. Should the constitution define marriage. I believe not, that instead it should be left up to individual laws and the majority vote to define what marriage is. Defining marriage in the constitution gives it credence as a constitutional right which is dangerous because if you can change it once you can change 20 times to reflect current beliefs which might lead to interference in marriage. If we define marriage with the constitution, where do we draw the line. Do we just state it is a union between 2 people like before or do we continue to modify and regulate what it is as we are doing now. Should infidelity be illegal and what would the penalty be, death. Should it state how often a couple has sex or how many children you can have, who sleeps on the left side of the bed, etc. These are extremes, and even though I don’t really believe they will be an issue I can still use them to debate the question because there will always be those who agree with extreme ideas. Laws are for keeping civil order but not every law should effect a change in the constitution. The constitution guarantees us certain inalienable rights, but not everything is or should be a constitutional right. When you rewrite it to suit you, that opens it up for others to rewrite it to suit them and in the end it will lose the basic ideals and principals it was created to represent. I believe marriage is a social and religious issue and should be defined by that and not a constitutional right.
Those are the facts. There will always be some crackpot who wants to have extreme ideas like the guy with the dog, but as long as he is in the minority he will never get the votes he needs to change the law in his favor so I am not worried. The guy with the 4 wives knows he can’t live in the US and be legally married so he doesn’t. Again I doubt you could find a majority of women who would vote the polygamy law in… even in Utah. You keep using these extreme examples which are just that, extreme. If you truly thought we as a country would legalize sex with animals you would move to Canada, so would I. As for modifying ones behavior, that can work against you if things change, could you modify your sexual behavior to suit popular ideas.
First of all, I agree on principle that constitutions shouldn’t be changed. I think, however, as I’ve said before, that The Constitution and the state constitutions are not adequate for every issue that comes before the courts, AND are thus not a good rule for what is right and wrong.
LAW deals with what is right and wrong. No way around that.
You said: “Defining marriage in the constitution gives it credence as a constitutional right”- which is right, and thus you have the reason you were wondering about above as to why the need to define and change a Constitution. I suspect gay rights activists will continue to fight for a definition that suits their purposes as well. Yay democracy!
“change it once you can change 20 times to reflect current beliefs which might lead to interference in marriage”- amen, sistah, and this is exactly my position. When morality (and, by extension, law) is decided by a limited document like a constitution, or what is worse, a majority of people, we run into major problems- which I why I keep bringing up the guy with the dog. His situation may be abhorrent to you, but he is denied the right to marry his puppy simply because he doesn’t have enough people around him to make an outcry. Again, yay democracy.
“I believe marriage is a social and religious issue and should be defined by that and not a constitutional right”- laws are developed FOR society based on a constitution (which, by extension, was developed by morality based on a religious system). They are not separable.
“There will always be some crackpot who wants to have extreme ideas like the guy with the dog, but as long as he is in the minority he will never get the votes he needs to change the law in his favor so I am not worried.”- how dare you call them extreme ideas??? I’m so offended! It’s my life and my choice!! I want to marry my sister and my cousin and my Pomeranian and I am denied my rights!!
See where that leads? Again, morality (and law) are defined by a majority. Something is legal and right only because a majority of people think so. I’m sure you see the inherent problem there. Muslims are becoming a very large minority in the US. I don’t think the days of dealing with problems of alternative sexuality are as far off as you seem to think. By redefining the traditional definition of marriage, the government opens itself up to these “extreme” cases.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but for the first time in my life I’m going to let some one else have the last word. I’m going to give my final response and let you rebuttal and then I am done with the subject, not that it hasn’t been fun, because it has, but we are becoming a bit redundant and that is always a good sign to stop. It may be my last word but I never said it would be short so bare with me.
It is a dangerous precedent to create a law that denies a group of people equal rights and at the same time changes the very document that protects them to say it is okay. That is an end run around the basic principals of the constitution no matter how you look at it. You say that is okay with you and I get that, but what if this law, prop 8, wasn’t about SSM, what if it were about something else using the same tactics and principals. What if instead the law and constitution now defines marriage as between a man and a woman but that the woman is not equal to the man but his property. You agree with part of this law but not all of it, what now? Normally you could take it to the Supreme Court and plead your case that it was discrimination and therefore unconstitutional but not now because just like here in Ca. the justices will have no choice but to uphold the Constitution which now reads you are property. You could of course try to change the law but in the meantime you are property and bound by the laws of the majority without recourse, to do as you are told. This isn’t that far fetched, 150 years ago women were treated as property of Fathers and then Husbands. We had few rights and this document, this Constitution was used to give us equal rights with men. To now use this same document to take away rights simply because the country is offended by gay men and women wanting to get married is wrong. The constitution should never be used to support discrimination. Prop 8 all by itself is unconstitutional and discriminatory but because it rewrites the constitution, suddenly it’s not. How will we in the future decide what is discriminatory if the constitution can be changed so easily. Prop 8 reaches far beyond defining marriage, it redefines the constitution itself to approve discrimination. How long before they use it to take away my right to pray to the God of my choice or marry a man outside my race or be forced into sterilization because I am only allowed 1 child. Other countries allow this, what will stand in the way of this happening here. Good, moral, righteous people, I don’t think so.
Marriage has always been defined by law as two consenting adults who are not related by 2 generations, in other words you can’t marry your cousin but you can marry your 2nd cousin. Is this discrimination, probably but the law wasn’t created because of an ick factor but because of genetic anomalies so maybe not. There will always be people in this world who insist on crossing the street on a red light and we can’t stop them. We don’t need to change the constitution to give them the right to cross on red and we don’t need to change it to stop them either. Leave the Constitution alone, let it continue to be the lamp post that guides us and protects our human rights. Let the ever changeable laws change to reflect the times and morals of the Nation’s people instead.
I realize it is ludicrous to think that church and state are separate but the original design of this country was that they should be. We are all influenced by our faith even those of no faith at all. But somehow our leaders are expected to do it because it is necessary to be impartial to run this country. History shows that if you do not separate church and state you get mass murder. The Inquisition, The Holocaust, Queen Mary I, Salem Witch Trials, Sept. 11, these are just a few examples.
Well I have really enjoyed this evenshine and I look forward to the next issue we disagree on. One thing I thing we can both agree on is that this issue isn’t going to get solved here on my blog. See you in the comment section of your blog and hopefully mine…… R.
Insider- very sporting of you. I’ll address your points as best I can.
1. You compare gay rights with the rights of women in this country. I refer you to my point that there’s a big difference between ontology (or who someone IS) and functionality (what one chooses to do). We have laws against certain behaviors: chopping people up, driving too fast, marrying your parakeet. Ontologically, a man+a man is not marriage, since the definition of that state is woman+man. Again, I would be FOR domestic partnerships. But gay couples simply do not fit the description of marriage, since they are the same sex. You change the definition and you have no plausible deniability when Mr. and Mrs. parakeet come to court.
2. You are making statements such as “it is wrong” and “let’s protect human rights” while at the same time disavowing any religious or moral system. This is difficult because without some objective source for right and wrong, those leaders you trust so much are left to their own devices- and thus can change the law at any time, at will. That impartiality that officials should have- how far does it extend? To serial rapists? To the leaders of drug cartels? You just need enough people with posters and loud voices, and you get “rights”.
3. Marriage has unequivocally NOT been defined historically as “two consenting adults who are not related by 2 generations”. If that were the case, my husband and your husband could have an affair and it would be a marriage. Never mind that in many societies, polygamy is the rule of law, or even polygyny. Does it make it right? From your perspective, as long as the government says so, yes.
4. “Let the ever changeable laws change to reflect the times and morals of the Nation’s people instead.”- oy vey. Hello Mr. German Shepherd.
It has, indeed, been an interesting discussion. I’m glad, though, that it hasn’t degenerated into name calling and epithet-throwing, as it usually does. I”m happy to provide a reasoned, logical argument for the conservative side, since too often it is villified and caricatured. It’s emphatically NOT about hate, or about that uncomfy feeling around gays, or about a desire to discriminate and deny people rights. The sooner we can understand that, the better.
Blessings.
I completely agree.
Looking at this from a teenager’s point of view it seems a bit unfair…….My peers wanted to march against prop 8, mainly because they thought it was unfair that other people decided who they could marry. Not that they were all gay, but they might be, or their children might be. I know at my school it really didn’t matter if it was good or bad to be gay, it was just that, in my opinion, other people weren’t happy so they wanted other people to be unhappy with them :)