World Events
Topic: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by CA Supreme Court

#	Author	Message
101	WorldDisney Fri 5/16/2008 7:53a	Same sex married dalmatians!! (Hmmm, although I can't explain what happens to the odd one out lol. I'm guessing he/she is in one of those multi-spouse relationships people been talking about a lot here ;))
102	Kar2oonMan Fri 5/16/2008 8:43a	Transsexual hookers are not on trial here!
103	Dabob2 Fri 5/16/2008 9:24a	<We do ourselves and our country a disservice when we talk to opponents of gay marriage politely.> I'm of two minds about that. I understand what you all are saying about that, and I know where you're coming from. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. But as SPP points out, not everyone who currently opposes same-sex marriage is a hardcore bigot. Many can be persuaded. Many HAVE been persuaded. And many others will be turned off, get defensive, and harden their position the wrong way if they're called bigots. I've seen it in my own life. I know a number of people who used to oppose same-sex marriage but now favor it. I remember talking to them about it years ago. I laid out my arguments rationally and politely, and didn't convince them. X-number of months later perhaps we had the same conversation... still didn't convince them. But the seeds were planted. And as they thought about it more, and perhaps saw my own marriage in action (and/or those of other people they knew), slowly they came around. The polls show there are millions of people like this. Support for marriage equality nationwide used to be a blip, then 10%, then 15%... now it's about 35%, with another 30% or so favoring marriage but not using the "M word" (calling it civil unions). And I doubt few of them changed their minds because they were called bigots and didn't like it. I'm guessing most of them were persuaded slowly. We saw this with segregation also. Plenty of my southern relatives of my Mom's generation were against integration, not because they were hard-core bigots, but simply because it was what they grew up with and it seemed like "the way things are." And changing it seemed risky. Why upset the apple cart, they thought? They knew they didn't really hate black people. It wasn't like black people couldn't ride the bus at all or get a drink of water. They could do so - just separately - was that so awful? These weren't bad-hearted people. They had been taught black people should be separate, or even that they were inferior to whites, and when challenged on an assumption they held all their lives - guess what, they didn't change their minds overnight. They unquestionably held bigoted attitudes but I wouldn't call THEM bigots - does that make sense? And slowly, they heard the arguments MLK and others were making, saw how important it was to the black people they knew, and came to understand that segregation was wrong. But in some cases it took years. So I think it's fine to say that the ATTITUDES espoused by some here are bigoted, and to call a hard-core bigot like a Dobson or someone like that exactly what he is, but we shouldn't be afraid of what the Quakers call "friendly persuasion" with a lot of folks. Millions of Americans HAVE moved the right way on this issue (and, as with segregation, very few move the other way). A majority of Americans under 30 now favor full marriage equality and are unlikely to move the other way. It's coming. Me, if I encounter someone who seems to be a hard-core bigot, I'll say my piece but not fight too hard because he may NEVER change his mind. But if I see a basically good-hearted person who opposes gay marriage for the time being, I'll explain my position politely and plant the seeds. With people like this, I think it's the better way to go.
104	ecdc Fri 5/16/2008 10:00a	Good points, Dabob2 and SPP. Well said. I can see the value in moderating the tone. But I think it's still important to point out that bigotry, even if it's unintended, is still bigotry. Comparisons to civil rights are particularly apt. My concern remains that without pointing that out, it can legitimize the other position. I can have a conversation, say, about how to solve America's healthcare crisis. There are different ideas, many of them good and legitimate. But I find it very difficult to have a serious conversation about why gay people should or should not be allowed to marry. It seems no different than having a conversation about why blacks ought or ought not be allowed to marry. I think that's an important distinction to make, even when remaining polite.
105	Dabob2 Fri 5/16/2008 10:09a	<But I think it's still important to point out that bigotry, even if it's unintended, is still bigotry. Comparisons to civil rights are particularly apt.> <It seems no different than having a conversation about why blacks ought or ought not be allowed to marry. I think that's an important distinction to make, even when remaining polite.> I agree. I'll explain why the position is wrong, but try not to characterize the person who holds it. And point out that many people have changed their minds on this (as with segregation), and they can too.
106	SingleParkPassholder Fri 5/16/2008 10:16a	http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult...tiny.htm I remember posting this once before, but because it's very relevant now I'll repeat it. In an earlier post I referenced the different levels of scrutiny the courts use when evaluating a law. The Caifornia Supreme Court used scrict scruitiny, where the government must show a compelling state interest. Opponents are using and will likely push for a rational basis test, where the government need only show the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. There's an intermediate level as well, but it doesn't seem to be in play here so far. Here's an excerpt, and more discussion is available at the link. Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis 1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.): A. Suspect Classifications: 1. Race 2. National Origin 3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis) 4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied). B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights 1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote 2. Interstate Migration 3. Access to the Courts 4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental 2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.): Quasi-Suspect Classifications: 1. Gender 2. Illegitimacy 3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.) Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.
107	alexbook Fri 5/16/2008 10:17a	SPP: You've posted a couple of times that the voters can't reverse this. I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't tried reading the decision itself, but the news stories (e.g., the L. A. Times this morning) say this decision was based on the gay marriage ban being in violation of the state Constitution. Surely, that *could* be amended by the voters this November. There's certainly going to be an initiative on the ballot to do just that. It's called the "Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment" and the California Secretary of State's web site lists it as "pending signature verification."
108	SingleParkPassholder Fri 5/16/2008 10:18a	To follow up, some may ask "since homosexuals are expressly mentioned in the rational basis section, why wasn't that used?", the answer is the court found a fundamental right, marriage, was at play, elevating it to strict scrutiny.
109	alexbook Fri 5/16/2008 10:21a	Here's the link I meant to include: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...ns_j.htm
110	SingleParkPassholder Fri 5/16/2008 10:28a	Alex- voters can vote on whatever is put in front of them. All sorts of sensible and nonsensical things end up on the ballot. But the initiatives have to pass judicial muster afterwards, provided someone brings a suit, and someone always does. That's what I mean by the voters can't simply overturn it this by an initiative. The California Supreme Court has signaled that anything with the end result of a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-370	371-380	381-390	391-400
	401-410	411-420	421-430	431-440	441-450
	451-460	461-470	471-480	481-490	491-500
	501-510	511-520	521-530	531-540	541-550
	551-560	561-570	571-580	581-590	591-600
	601-610	611-620

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Disney Fine Art at
The LaughingPlace Store
The LaughingPlace Store now carries a selection of Disney Fine Art from ACME Archives and Sanders CC Gallery

What's on
The Latest
Group RCI and Disney Vacation Club Members to Receive Benefit of New Multi-Year Relationship
NetDragon and Disney to Launch First MMORPG 'Disney Fantasy Online'
Disneyland Thanksgiving Day Parade pictures
New Disneyland Resort Video and Audio podcasts available
Video of dogs visiting Santa Paws at WDW's Downtown Disney
Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea Schedule for Fiscal Year 2009
TCM Presents: The Family Classics With All-New Original Special and Nostalgic Holiday Festival
Kids go free to Disney on Broadway
Innoventions Dream Home featured on MSN.com
Disney Store Responds to Inaccurate Information in Widely Circulating Email

Click here for The Latest