Slashdot Mirror
Google Challenging Proposition 8
theodp writes "Coming the day after it announced layoffs and office closures, Google's California Supreme Court filing arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8, which asks the Court not to harm its ability to recruit and retain employees, certainly could have been better timed. Google's support of same-sex marriage puts it on the same page with Dan'l Lewin, Microsoft's man in Silicon-Valley, who joined other tech leaders last October to denounce Prop 8 in a full-page newspaper ad. But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint. "
why could the timing have been better? how are the two related?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read that as Google Challenging Preparation H
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
I'll get modded down in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
If you're one of those dumbshit gay hating jesusbots, I guess that's evil.
But really, if Jesus were to come back today and see what those guys were calling a religion based on his teachings, he'd be totally fucking pissed.
surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint
It's surprising only if you assume that anybody who believes the term marriage should remain gender heterogenous must also think the murder of Matthew Shephard was a really good idea.
I didn't vote yes on 8, but I know a lot of people who did, and their decision had little to do with any lack of sensitivity or exposure to diversity.
Tweet, tweet.
Put aside whatever your thoughts on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. Try to look at this from a systems standpoint.
First, we have a court decision allowing gay marriage. Then, we get a proposition that the voters decide that it should be illegal. Here, we have a very classic case of the voters' wishes versus the concept of legal rights which should not be subject to democratic vote. One side claims that marriage is an inalienable right regardless of gender, and the other side which says this isn't the case. Very deep stuff.
Now, stirring up the issue are corporations. Where in the hell do corporations belong in this? I am of the classical view that corporations are there to make and distribute money. I've never been comfortable with corporations lobbying lawmakers. I have never been comfortable with corporations donating to causes. Let them make and distribute wealth and let individuals make those choices.
When corporations get involved with government, it gets ugly. Same with church and state. So regardless of my feelings on Google's position, my thought is they should shut up. If individuals in Google want to take a stand, fine. But when it becomes Google versus the voters, I become uneasy.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"harm its ability to recruit and retain employees"? How the bloody hell does someone being unable to marry someone else prevent you from employing them?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
> Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8'
Follow the money...
And remember, investing in MS risks having your money used against you in the marketplace.
"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases."
Wikipedia Source
Google's argument can be summarized as such: The law deters gays and lesbians from taking up residence in California, which is where the majority of Google's employees work. Thus the law is detrimental to Google in that its gay/lesbian employees may want to leave and prospective employees who happen to be gay/lesbian will have more hoops to jump through to work for Google.
This is particularly bad timing for such a thing as Google is in the process of laying off workers (though it is a very small number - something like 100) and if they are in a position where they have to layoff employees, why are they even talking about hiring employees? Of course the answer to this is simple - Google hopes to grow and something like this will be pertinent in the future - but some people are very shortsighted and will not recognize this.
The argument is more than a little weird and weak in the current climate, but what exactly would be wrong with taking a position with respect to the proposition?
Tweet, tweet.
So are they being evil here or not? I'm confused.
That depends. If you are against gay marriage, they are evil.
I don't get it. Of all the things going on in the World today, I don't get why this is such a hot issue. Actually, I don't get why folks are so opposed to it. It doesn't cause them any harm.
That's pretty much what the problem is with social value "problems" in this country: people sticking their noses in other people's business. Two people of the same sex getting married doesn't harm me. A person marrying a goat doesn't harm me. But yet, some people think the World will come to an end of two people of the same sex get married. So what? What harm does it cause you?! (I'm not speaking to the parent) What, you're afraid your little snowflake will see two people of the same sex kissing each other and think , "Hmmmmm, I'll kiss my buddy Rod!" Again, so what? In many cultures, heterosexual MEN kiss each other. In our culture, heterosexual women kiss each other. So, again, so what?
Oh wait, your religious book doesn't like it...ooohhhhhh. Which part? The 'Old' part that I think is just Jewish Myth or the 'New' part that's completely loving and forgiving of all folks?
If it weren't happening I would think it were a script from a Twilight Zone episode. You know, where it's set up where folks hate each other for completely ridiculous reasons to show a point of the script writers. In the old days it was Rod Serling - a Goddamn genius.
DP partner benefits are taxable. Marriage benefits are not.
Still that applies only to state taxes until federal Defense of Marriage is modified.
Plenty of gay hatred inside of Obamanation.
Taking off the blinders and looking in the mirror is the first step in getting real.
If Google can win this lawsuit, then any action by Government can be challenged by the same basis. High taxes in California has caused a number of companies to move, and more importantly, a number of individuals. If not being able to hire talent because of gender based marriage gets legal protection, then taxes, school systems, real estate costs.... wow. Maybe I hope they don't win.
Didn't the CA public not want the Gay marriage thing in the first place? Wasn't something like some judges getting it in there? Considering CA may have been the only or one at least one of a handful to actually have a gay marriage thing in place, I seriously doubt any claims that it would hurt their ability to head hunt.
Are you saying that the tiny percentage of the general population which is gay is so much better/more productive than the 99.99% of the other population it doesn't matter if you hurt the 99.99% productivity or your ability to hire out of that pool as that .01% of gay people that you can manage to hire is just that much better that its almost worth to piss off everyone else?
If that were so, I'm sure straight managers would bend over for them. I'm sure that there exists some people that are just awesomely productive. To say that population is the gay population is humorous at best. You'd basically have to hunt each industry for their super geniuses to find them. I'm sure that the really high end head hunters could list who those people are and exactly how much that it would take to buy/rent their services. Are you going to be able to say that any given sub group of the population produces these people? Not without alot more data to back you up. (I'd actually be curious to the answer to that though.)
...do something about the oppressive cost of housing in the bay area.
...do something about the oppressive taxes in California.
...do something about the oppressive traffic.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
States don't marry people, churches do. When a couple goes before a justice of the peace and get married, they're really just entering a civil-union. The state has allowed religious officiants to create these unions as part of a church's marriage ceremony, but they are two distinct institutions. For instance if one get's married in the Catholic church, and later gets a civil divorce the church still views that person as being married. In order to get remarried in the Catholic church, you have to have the first marriage annulled by the church. Conversely, just having one's church marriage annulled doesn't leave one legally eligible for remarriage until they get a civil divorce.
Of course the source of confusion is that the state refers to civil unions with the religious term marriage. When people hear about gay marriage being legalized, in their minds they think of the religious part of it, and no one likes the state messing around with their religion. If gays are allowed to get married, no church is obligated to marry them. There are plenty of churches that will (some already do) but the state can't mandate that a church violate its religious beliefs.
Gays need to drop the gay-marriage campaign, and go for civil-unions which are identical, yet more palatable to the general(voting) public.
My other sig is extremely clever...
sheesh can businesses just stay out of crap, their money being in the system is more than half the problem..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
If you don't like the outcome of a straight up or down referendum, challenge it in court, great precedent there. On the other hand, if something is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people agree with a wrong view, they are still wrong. It is interesting to think what would have happened if the black turnout hadn't been so extraordinary thanks to Obama, I seem to remember exit polls saying that most african american voters voted against gay marriage. That being said, I'm all for gay marriage, do what makes you happy, it ain't hurting anyone.
Google's basic argument is correct; they're probably hoping to highlight the more far-reaching economic implications, however. It's not just about Google's ability to hire competitively. The whole state of California just said "no" to billions of dollars in revenue that we were already seeing start to come in during the period when marriage was legal for all. It's just too bad the "No on 8" campaign was so lousy; it would have been really smart for them to highlight this point themselves during the campaign and actually tried to defeat Prop 8 directly rather than fighting through the courts now, which is pissing a lot of people off, even some who voted No to begin with.
"charged with diversity and sensitivity training"
So, he was charged with giving someone a class on diversity and sensitivity? I agree, the people that teach those classes should be punished...
Question: If Google is really concerned about this, why don't they close down their California offices and move to Massachusetts where gay marriage is a recognized as legal and valid?
Answer: They're just grandstanding.
The IRS doesn't recognize civil union, just married or not?
It has a meaning at both the church and state level, which is the problem. Many people do not like the government redefining a religious term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are for a separation of the terms and the granting of equal rights, but this is not acceptable by the gay community.
I am sorry, I still do not understand. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.
Funny, isn't it, how the Left is all in favor of Democracy... ...until the will of the People is against their agenda?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
The idea was to put yourself in the position of gay couples. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states.
Wait didn't you hear about the new Google Gay Marriage beta? Dude, seriously, get with the times! I'd be more than happy to share my invites.
Was it really necessary to put an attack on one specific Microsoft employee who supported Prop 8? Microsoft has excellent benefits that are extended to same sex domestic partners. It seems kind of churlish to smear Microsoft by juxtaposing Google's corporate stance on the issue against one Microsoft employee's.
Come on, there's plenty of other things to attack Microsoft over.
They get hung up on the word marriage.
In reality, marriage under the law and marriage in a religious institution are different things with the same name. However, because many people do both things at once and because they don't distinguish between the two things, they get conflated.
Thanks Google for "Doing no evil". I'm also glad to see many other companies on board too. Apple and MS included.
You're as bad as the above poster, who insisted that 99.99% of California was straight and opposed to gay marraige.
Here's a suprising fact: The religious types don't care about any of the other issues, they only care about gay marriage, and fighting to keep a subsection of society under their thumb. The economy, business, and state government be damned (because they've got God and the coming rapture on their side!)
The real issue here is why the government is involved in the business of marriage to begin with. Government shouldn't be involved at all in the current fashion.
What bothers me personally is this artificial dichotomy that people have created surrounding this issue on both sides. This isn't just about gays and lesbians. What about spinster sisters that simply live together and want their civil rights? Boyfriend and girlfriend forever? Polyamorists? Where are their rights? And what about states that automatically deem a couple to be in common-law marriage without them consciously having entered into that contract? None of these issues have been covered by the proponents or opponents of Prop 8.
Marriage should be replaced by a comprehensive standard (but modifiable) civil contract between two or more consenting adults like any other business contract. Whether one goes to a church to get married, or to a lawyer's office, they can choose to call it what they will and associate as they want to, but that's separate from the contract. In effect, every "civil union" will be bound by a prenuptial agreement that must be consciously entered into by all parties that defines all of the criteria for what is currently deemed marriage. Assets coming into the marriage shouldn't be deemed automatic community property unless the parties choose this consciously. Child custody will always be split equally amongst the individuals unless otherwise specified in the contract or unless it can be clearly proven that harm is coming to the children from one or more of the parties; joint custody is implied even when they live together (since that's effectively the same thing, just that they're under the same roof). In addition, this will also function as a living and non-living will so that probate judges don't erode an inheritance for the state's benefit as opposed to the individual's benefit, and also to avoid conflicts with the families of the individuals involved. Also, just like a standard contract, individuals will not be entitled to things like lifetime alimony and must mitigate their "damages" by being obligated to find work and/or getting educated to find better work. The contract may be modified at any time with the consent of the parties. During a "divorce", the parties will be bound by the separation provisions of the agreement, thereby reducing the amount of time that lawyers and judges are involved, the amount of tax money spent on courts, and the amount of personal money spent on lawyers in protracted litigation. For those in current marriages, their marriages would be subject to the same standard civil contract rules with modifications from any pre-existing prenuptial agreements.
Neither of the candidates in this presidential election nor any of the state or local candidates made any mention of the damage that the process of divorce has on families, and on individuals' wealth. Divorce is one of the biggest destroyers of wealth in society today and contributes to other societal problems such as childhood delinquency. Why not take on both the issue of civil rights and of divorce, and redefine fundamentally how society organizes itself? If people were forced to think carefully on what a marriage really is - a business transaction - then they might treat it as such. Wrap whatever other window dressing you like around it, but it all boils down to business at the end of the day.
I'd say that if any corporations were truly progressive, they would push for this too. At the end of the day, this would be to their benefit when an employee "divorces" since there would be less time spent off of work. Too bad Google doesn't get this, and even more humorously undermines its own argument by laying off people. Mixing business and politics isn't smart business anyway, as being neutral on issues pisses off the least number of potential customers as I'm sure Google will lose a few of its customers. Unfortunately, everyone loses when we force these dichotomies down people's throats, and business money like Google's simply aggravates this.
The church does not marry people legally at all dude, they do it spiritually, and the government gives them a 'license of union' or marriage license. If a church decides gays can marry then it would be a marriage, even if it's the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
If the state can issue a marriage license for a straight couple, then they have to issue one for a gay couple (per my interpretation of 1st amendment).
So either they allow gay marriage, or all marriages become legal civil unions and churches can call them whatever they want.
And asking Gays to make it 'more palatable' with a different name is like asking women to say they don't have the right to 'vote', just the right to 'suggest'.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
So supporting gay marriage somehow discriminates against those who believe in God? You probably work at a company that breaks a commandment at least a few times a week. But that's OK because it doesn't trigger your homophobia.
Except these peeps
You can think and believe whatever you want to think and believe. I have no problem with that.
The problem comes when you try to hijack the U.S. legislative system to force people who are not members of your religion to follow your religious strictures.
A church should be able to determine under which conditions it's own members get married in (as long as they still have freedom of religion to leave the church if they choose.) It should NOT be able to determine whether non-members of the church can get married.
How would you like it if your marriage was annulled because, say, the Catholics didn't approve of it?
It seems that most who are against gay marriage are either generally anti-gay and/or rather religious (and still view marriage as a church, male+female institution).
As a taxpayer, one thing that concerns me more is the current court cases (see BC, Canada) with polygamy.
It seems to me that being married to multiple partners muddles the whole benefits/insurance/etc situation a lot more than gay marriages would.
A list of stupid republican arguments against gay marriage
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Being gay is disgusting. Which is why lesbian porn isn't a 3.5 billion dollar a year industry.
9. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. (Obama is the proof for this one)
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
First the history of Marriage is such that we are only dealing with RECENT tradition. Churchs and the state did NOT always do the marrying. Marriage predates Christianity by a fair amount and it seems from a historical standpoint that the first KNOWN marriages were usually enjoined privately with no legal(state) or Religious ceremony.
Lastly I find telling people they shouldnt fight for the same rights and priviledges others hold is wrong. I say fight on! It appears they are in good company- Gandhi, Mandella, King Jr., Ironically Calvin, The founding Fathers(no taxation without reprensentation), pretty much any Civil Rights issue in history, ever.
So, only religious beliefs that are in line with your way of thinking are OK? I thought all you "forward thinking" types value tolerance. Where is the tolerance for Mike's beliefs?
But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint. "
What is so odd about a former "HR Chief" disagreeing with the official MicroSoft PR?
What's odd to me is that he could blow $100,000.00 on this. Damn. I should get into the Human Resources business.
Seriously? Jesus, try not to be completely dense. Imagine for a second that you have polka-dot skin, and place you'd like to work for happens to be in Plaidlandia, where people with polka-dot skin are reviled and discriminatory laws are written into the books against them. Would you take the job in Plaidlandia?
You can fill in other involuntary attributes, places, and such above as needed until a light dawns in your head. (The part of me that thinks that subtly is lost on the clueless really wants to mutter something about being a Jewish, German-speaking chemist in 1933 and immigrating to Germany here, but that seems over the top. :P)
Hell, I'm as straight as an arrow and Prop 8 gives me pause regards moving to silicon valley. I left Texas partially because I was tired of my work and income supporting an economy full of bigots with a government happy to cater to them, and moving to where a pile of assholes just wrote discrimination (of any sort, regardless of whether I would be affected by it) into their state constitution isn't high on my list of Good Moves.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I for one find the concept that a state (or country) for that matter could change its constitution with a simple 50% majority vote deeply disturbing. ...
/. (from a digital point of view ;-)
Where I live (NL) --Yes, liberal bias on these issues because of nationality is noted -- a constitution change involves:
- Find 2/3 majority vote in Congress;
- than a 2/3 majority vote in Senate;
- New elections (that means wait out the 4 year term);
- new 2/3 majority vote in the newly elected Congress and
- new 2/3 majority vote in the newly elected Senate.
This prevents constitution amendments based on hype or 'in-vogueness' of an idea and it also allows for the legislation to mature.
Of course the constitution deal does get clouded in package deals, as it will hardly be the only issue in an election. And yes it does make a constitution change slow as molasses, but it does look like a more even keeled process.
BTW, does this mean a new 'reverse prop 8' amendment can be started up next week which will undo this change? A flip-flop constitution sounds like an interesting concept for
Taxes can be addressed, but the other two are features of any wildly popular job market. People will keep coming until something "oppresses" them enough that they'll stay away.
At least in my admittedly somewhat limited experience. I was looking for a full-timer gig last spring and it came down to Google and another place. Google wanted me to move to Cali for three months at the start of any engagement with them (I guess to give the kool-aid 90 days to work ;)). I got the impression that they were not very flexible about that, either (maybe it's different for international offices? I'm on the east coast of the US). So I can easily see the argument that the laws and environment of California would have a strong effect on their hiring operations, if the above is in fact par for the course.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Gee, I wonder why people care about sex? It's not as if it's important or anything.
Hint: People like normal sexuality (their sexuality), and see little reason to celebrate what is a distinct minority preference. And they certainly don't want their kids to turn gay. People want to have grandkids. There you have another strong preference.
Finally, there is that whole "democracy" thing, I.e. not having the law written by judicial fiat. That principle alone is ten times as important as gay "marriage".
I am just wondering why this story was tagged as "Republican." I mean Prop 8 passed by about 600,000 votes or 4% of those voting and no one can say the Republicans normally can produce that kind of a majority in California. Clearly, more than just Republicans are against it.
Upon closer examination a typo was found in proposition 8 that limits marriage to being between one man and one wolfman.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/typo_in_proposition_8
See, Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination. What's all the fuss about?
The cost of housing in the bay area isn't something the government can really control unless they step in and tell people they can't sell their property for more than some cap.
The prices are through the roof because the amount of wealth introduced to the area and the number of people willing to leverage that wealth, or their next 30 years of productivity, in order to live there. If the cost of housing is too hgih for you to stomach don't live their. You can buy two or three times the house for a fifth of the money elsewhere in the country.
I live in Alabama. My 1800 sq ft home was just over $120k three years ago. Today it's worth about the same amount as my area wasn't affected by the housing bubble. My Salary is $60k. I am by no means a superstar employee and am actually on the low end of the totem pole at my tech job. I have a less than fifteen minute commute through residential neighborhoods every morning. If I lived in San Jose I'd probably need between two to three times the salary just to scrape by and likely have a much longer and less pleasant commute.
I don't think the state should "recognize" or "forbid" ANY "marriage."
If two people want to enter into a contract that obligates them to sexual monogamy or establishes joint custody of children, etc., so be it, they should be able to do that. And if an insurer wants to give a discount for people in such relationships, then more power to them.
But marriage shouldn't have any effect on how much tax you pay, and it should not elevate or abridge anyone's rights, ever.
Traditional marriage favors certain classes of people over others: Good looking people with money and people with certain other social advantages, and people who choose to reproduce, are in a category that finds a natural fit for "marriage", where others do not. The idiom of marriage is simply not a context that fits well in a system of government that is aimed at equal protection and equality.
It should not be an institution of the state *at all*, and if it were simply a social phenomenon, we wouldn't be having this argument -- and if the ideas behind conventional "marriage" were enforced by binding *contracts*, we would also see very different patterns in the realm known today as "divorce."
I've just started telling people I don't "recognize" marriage using exactly the same talking points being used against "same sex" marriage, just leaving out the "same sex" parts.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_technology_florida.aspx
Gays and Growth
Perhaps our most striking finding is that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success is a large gay population. Frequently cited as a harbinger of redevelopment and gentrification in distressed urban neighborhoods, the presence of gays in a metro area signals a diverse and progressive environment and provides a barometer for a broad spectrum of amenities attractive to adults, especially those without children. To some extent, the gay and lesbian population represents what might be called the "last frontier" of diversity in our society.
As table 1 shows, 11 of the top 15 high-tech metropolitan areas (column 1) also appear in the top 15 of the gay index (column 2). The five metro areas with the highest concentration of gay residentsâ"San Francisco, Washington, Austin, Atlanta, and San Diegoâ"are all among the nation's top 15 high-tech areas. In our statistical analyses, the gay index does better than other individual measures of social and cultural diversity as a predictor of high-tech location. The correlations are exceedingly high and consistently positive and significant. The results of a variety of multivariate regression analyses support this finding. The gay index is positively and significantly associated with the ability of a region both to attract talent and to generate high-tech industry.
Gays predict not only the concentration of high-tech industry, but also its growth, as we found when we compared our gay index with the Milken Institute Tech-Growth Index, which measures growth in output of high-tech industries within metropolitan areas from 1990 to 1998 relative to the national growth rate in output of high-tech industries during the same period. Five of the cities in the top 10 in the Tech-Growth Index also rank in the top 10 for the gay index. What's more, the correlation between the gay index (measured in 1990) and the Milken Tech-Growth Index increases over time, suggesting that the benefits of diversity may actually compound as time goes on by increasing a region's high-tech prosperity.
To counter the possibility that the influence of San Francisco (which ranks first on both the high-tech and gay indices) creates a false association between the two measures, we repeated the analyses without San Francisco. That second analysis strengthened slightly the influence of the gay index on high-tech growth, increasing our confidence that the concentration of gays predicts high-tech concentration and growth.
--
In terms of tech, they are a bigger group than "5%".
modulo consanguinity or whatever
Just curious what your reasoning is here. Does this modulo extend to multiple partners? Animals? Why or why not?
...Google is not arguing it's case to the voters. It is arguing for the benefit of a court, as if their recruitment issues could possibly have any bearing on the constitutionality of Prop 8.
wow. just wow.
I'm sorry, how exactly are they discriminating against those who quote have faith unquote?
Given the context, I can only presume that you are referring to a having a religious faith belief in which marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and no other combination.
That's all fine and well, but how is Google discriminating against those who have that belief? Are they blocking visitors who have that belief? Are they not hiring people who have that belief? Are they firing those who have that belief?
There is no discrimination going on there. You are certainly more than free to withdraw yourself as one of their customers, but please don't delude yourself that this is about their decision to accept gay marriage - this is about *you* not being able to accept, or at least tolerate, that decision.
Just for the record and because I don't feel like making another post on this...
I don't believe in marriage between gay couples either. Marriage has become, in my opinion, a Christian religious institute, and as long as that particular religion says no to gay marriages, I think that's something we all must either accept - and work to change within that particular religion if one feels strongly enough to do so. ( I figure if 'your' religion says gay marriage is a no-no and you believe otherwise, then maybe you don't quite align with that particular religion.)
However, I do strongly believe in legal partnerships between gay people with any and *all* rights (and responsibilities) that a marriage would give. That includes tax provisions, insurance provisions, benefits, adoption rights, and so forth and so on. All too often a legal partnership does not even come close to having the same rights (or responsibilities) that a marriage does, and that is truly a travesty that delineates once more the lack of separation of state and church (in many nations that claim to have or support such separation).
Just my 2cts.
This law is probably one of the best I've ever seen. It is simple, short, clearly worded, we know who it effects in all cases. It also clears up a lot of issues.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Now I live in Alabama and judging from how many amendments we have, I think the procedure we use is sneak into the courthouse with a pen. It is much less of a hassle on the voters and lets our politicians do more important things like get into fist fights.
In light of the hologram, the Nihilism link is pretty funny.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Google isn't formally challenging Prop 8 in court. (I don't think there's any way a corporation would have standing to do so.) They've signed an amicus brief in support of several other cases. An amicus brief only gets as much attention as the judge wants to give it; unlike briefs filed by actual parties, the court can disregard them entirely. Google has essentially just submitted a general statement on its position to the courts--not quite the same as mounting a "challenge" to the legislation.
Unless you were planning on staying in Cali, you probably wouldn't be paying taxes, adopting a child, visiting your spouse in the hospital, getting married, or doing any of the other things that might make life difficult for you as a gay person in California. Three months isn't really that long.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I don't get it. Of all the things going on in the World today, I don't get why this is such a hot issue. Actually, I don't get why folks are so opposed to it. It doesn't cause them any harm.
Sheep don't know why they're all running all of a sudden.
They just run when the others run. That's how life works.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yanno, the way proposition 8 is worded should impose that much impediment. Couldn't one half of the couple simply declare itself to be the opposite sex (I'm sure there's some legal mechanism now, due to transsexuals doing this somehow.)
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
They get hung up on the word marriage.
In reality, marriage under the law and marriage in a religious institution are different things with the same name. However, because many people do both things at once and because they don't distinguish between the two things, they get conflated.
But in reality the people who really really want gay marriage also want to gay marry in a church (they want what others have).
And then things get territorial...
You can't take the sky from me...
Yep. What is called lobbying in US is called bribery in most parts of the world. While I tend to agree with Google's position, it should not be able to interfere with the legislative process (note that here, they are doing a judicial action, not a legislative initiative). But if you want to forbid corporations influence on congress, support the campaign to change congress and stop voting for candidates according to their party, vote for those who commit at not using private funds for campaigning.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Your "littleurl" link points to http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2009/01/take-walk-through-gaza.html - although I don't understand why you felt the need to hide that with a contrived url. I'm not saying your cause is unjust, or even that you'll ever see this now that you've drive-by spammed a forum with it (congrats, by the way, you gained a pageview due to my curiosity).
For those who are curious but don't want to reward AC link spam with page hits, the referenced page talks about the atrocities in gaza, and calls for some political action amidst the finger-pointing propaganda.
Come to think of it, we should all be this conscientious, and just have *one* page hit generated by random AC link spam, by someone who then reports what it is - that way, the spammer doesn't get a reward, and those of us with a curiosity bordering on OCD can be satisfied without having to click an "unknown" link.
Please, don't let this post threadjack anything, I just wanted to point it out for what it was.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The courts are constitutional offices. A court can rule that a law is unconstitutional if the law contradicts protections and definitions in the constitution. Once an ammendment is passed, it is treated with the same weight and force as the constitution (by definition, the ammendment adds to the original constitution). On what grounds could the courts side for Google? They certainly cannot cite constitutional grounds, since the ammendment passed.
If the people of California do not like their constitution (as ammended), then they should take steps to repeal that ammendment (re-ammending the constitution).
As a society, we have agreed upon this constitutional form of government. If it is to prevail, we cannot allow the courts to redefine the constitutions of the various states or this nation by simple judicial edict. If we were to allow that, then the courts would have supreme authority in our states and nation, and there would be no checks and balances. As constitutional offices, courts must abide by constitutional writ. Constitutions may be ammended, but that is typically far more difficult that passing a new law.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Gays are a minority in America. They're not a minority in higher-level jobs requiring an education.
That's a very strong assertion.
What evidence is there that more than half of the people in "higher-level jobs requiring an education" are homosexual?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For the few days before the election hundred s of AdSense publishers were pissed off because AdWords advertisers were buying up every spot possible to show their pro-prop-8 ads all over the AdSense network...they were especially abundant on GLBT web sites, which I personally got a good chuckle out of.
dB Masters
That's true, the state really shouldn't have to worry about those whiny minorities. Maybe blacks *prefer* to go to the same schools as whites, but as long as they get to go to school they shouldn't have to be catered to by the state.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
1. Its Defined NOW as man+woman might check your history books for previous definitions which include: Man+ many women, Man + Litle girls, Little boys + little girls and So on. The 5000 year old history you mention has had some DOOZY of Marriages which i kid you not include Marriage to GOD, Gods, and other forms that are worshipped. Other Awesome institutions people voted for- Slavery Segregation Teaching creationism No INTERRACIAL marriages Some really spectaculary stupid or evil politicians.
basic human rights now require corporate firepower. i suppose its been effective up till now with foreign visas, daylight savings time, internet law to seek corporate masters though. maybe this will work too?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Wow, there sure are alot of assholes in Califoria.
OR maybe they're not really jerks and revilers, just normal people tired of the tyranny of political correctness in this country.
Time to stop labeling people who don't bow to the Gay movement as heartless abusers.
Absolutely. The root cause of the entire Proposition 8 debacle was the naive and frankly dangerous way in which Californians make changes to their constitution. Constitutions are vitally important legal documents, any changes to which should be carefully debated, reviewed, revised and audited before being made.
Even in countries that have referendums to change constitutions, both upper and lower houses of parliament, as well as the head of state and possibly the supreme court, must all sign off on any proposed amendment before it is sent for a general popular vote. Even then, many countries require a 60% majority in order for the amendment to be passed. In Germany, they don't even have referendums! In California, you need only find, persuade or trick 8% of the population into signing any old rag of a proposition, and it will be placed right there on a statewide ballot.
The result is predictable. Demagoguery, emotion and populism rule at the Californian ballot box. Forget Proposition 8. Look at Proposition 2! Rules on poultry production?! I don't care what side of that debate you are on. A state constitution is not an appropriate place for any such legislation. But that's where it ended up.
Such an outcome scrawled all over the pages of the Californian constitution makes me question just how serious Californians are about the legitimacy of their state and its rights. I ask, in all seriousness, whether such a state as this, which allows such capricious changes to its core laws, should be considered as a legitimate political entity? I note that the state cannot even balance its books, a task which is practically fundamental to the existence of any political body.
In short, should Californians really be left to govern themselves anymore?
May the Maths Be with you!
Gay marriage is an issue of freedom of association and personal action and discrimination within government recognition of associations.
Some people believe that there should be total freedom of personal action and of association, so long as you do not hurt of infringe anyone else's rights. On this view, there is, I believe, only two possible responses as to what the government should do about gay marriage: Recognize it, or not recognize any marriages whatsoever.
But it does not end there: The same principle -- that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without infringing on the rights of others -- which forces this move, forces other things as well. For example, if multiple people wanted to get married (polygamy) they would be allowed. This is an issue right now in Canada/BC, where Winston Blackmore (a fundamentalist Mormon) and a an associate of his have been charged with the crime of polygamy. Note that no gay marriage advocacy groups have at all loudly stood up to defend these fundamentalists' non-mainstream marriage arrangements, even though the same argument they use to push for recognition of gay marriage can be used to push for recognition of polygamous marriage. It would also force recognition of incestuous marriage for example: A father and his daughter, assuming both of consensual age, for example, could both wish to get married, and their getting married wouldn't infringe on anyone else's right. Yet no groups demand for incest rights like they do for gay rights. This is because of hypocrisy: They are morally uncomfortable with incest just as other bigots are morally uncomfortable with homosexuality. And it does not stop at issues of marriage. The same principle would imply that for example suicide should be allowed, or assisted suicide. Or cannibalism (this was an issue in Germany recently where one man chose for himself to be killed and partially eaten by another; the cannibal was nonetheless convicted though he infringed no one's rights). Or the use of hard drugs must be allowed. One's use of cocaine does not infringe on anyone else's rights. But the reason prohibitions are made on substances like cocaine is because there is this thought that when it is allowed that so many get addicted to the drugs that the society/economy as it is begins to break down, and society should not be allowed to break down in this way. This brings you to a differing view than the one first mentioned: Here there are things which override individual freedoms of personal action and association, such as economic sufficiency of the political body as a whole.
Well that's my view anyway: If you think that the government can prohibit things like drug use, or incest, or cannibalism, then you have no argument that they should not prohibit homosexuality because of gay rights, because that depends on there being underlying human freedoms which must respected in the first place! You have to bite the bullet so to speak.
I know at least two gay couples that would like to marry, and neither has any interest in doing so in a church.
And, in fairness, there's nothing wrong with them wanting to get married in a church. If their church allows for that, then all's well. Gay marriage legislation should in no way require that clergy perform marriages for gay people.
Civil rights > Budget issues
Huh? I could list my garbage collector as my beneficiary, if I wanted to, and nothing could stop me.
The difference is that the garbage collector wouldn't be allowed to live in your house and claim it as their own until your will had gone been executed properly or gone through probate, and your remaining family members could challenge the validity of the will, keeping your beloved garbage collector out of the house for more time during his time of bereavement.
For example, if your parents' house was only in your dad's name - Can you imagine, if your dad passed away and then your mother wasn't allowed to stay in the house for a month or two? That's what you're talking about.
I have watched a friend be kicked out of his own house when his partner passed away. He was given 15 minutes, by his partner's daughter, to gather his things and get out. If they had been legally married, this could not have happened.
The hospital visitation problem is a real issue. Married people have no problem visiting each other in a hospital, but a gay person's partner can be refused entry to their hospital room - for example by a family member who doesn't get along with the partner, unless some specific legal papers have been drawn up (you actually have to carry those papers with you). That's just not right.
There are a lot of parts of legally recognized marriage that can be simulated through clever lawyering, but the simple matter is that there is no substitute.
Putting moderation advice in your
I understand that you might see the LDS Church's views as hateful. We can agree to disagree and that is why this country is great.
No, we can't.
Using the ballot proposition system to take explicitly take rights away from a minority group, when those rights pose no risk to anyone else's rights and are allowed to the majority is wrong, unethical, and of questionable legality.
Funding groups that want to do so, on the basis of delusions in which an imaginary man in the sky tells you that said minority group is evil, is hateful at best, but probably more aptly described as psychopathic or paranoid-delusional.
Why not a polygamous civil union? I mean, it's not my kind of thing (having one wife is enough work for me, thanks) but why limit it to just two people?
The voting may be over, but court still has some right to review the law. The question is if they have any room left to maneuver and if they're inclined to do so. With the state constitution amended, I suspect they really have one option, and that's to find that the amendment Prop 8 enacts runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, in which case, they'd be tossing the case up to the federal level. It's not clear the court would do this, however -- the court was pretty closely divided on the decision that overturned prop 22, and a second public referendum that amends the state constitution might be something one of the judges wouldn't be willing to overturn. On the other hand, there may be other ways to toss this into the federal system.
In short, there are fewer options for prop 8 opponents, but it's not necessarily over.
Tweet, tweet.
No, no... Googles intentions here are purely economically based.
Gay marriage can save the economy.
And yes, I know this for a fact, as Neil Patrick Harris said it himself.
And when was the last time NPH was wrong?
Microsoft - The best ad campaign Apple ever had.
What get's me is all the folks wanting to usurp the lawfully made decisions of the electorate of California. "We don't like this law, just because (supply a reason), so we'll throw it out, whether the voters who voted for it in the first place like it or not".
Perhaps I'm the 'minority' on slashdot but I think Google would be better off sticking to search engines and the web than getting into politics.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Jews of course have the right to pray. In a church.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
---
Of course, Jews are allowed to pray in a synagogue because we have separation of church and state. But, imagine if we had a state church, and they weren't? My statement would then be just as accurate, and just as wrong.
Those exit polls were exaggerated.
blog
Stand to Reason offer good arguments against "gay" marriage, for the good of society
So what are those "good arguments", and why didn't they make them during the campaign for prop 8?
Or are outright lies considered "good arguments" to you fundies?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Company XYZ: People don't like to come here and work for us because of Law FooBar (e.g. taxes to high, speed limit to low, handguns illegal, etc.), therefore the law is unconstitutional and the State Supreme Court should overturn it.
Would anyone buy that line of reasoning about any other topic?
The California constitution has two sorts of changes: amendments, which as previously noted require only a majority of voters, and revisions, which require the voter approval in addition to a 2/3 legislative majority in each house. Unfortunately, damned if I can figure out what it means to be a "revision" vs. an "amendment".
"But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint."
Just because he tolerates other lifestyles does not mean he should change his beliefs. As long as he's not endangering others, he has every right to express his opinion and his beliefs without being labeled as a bigot. Is his personal opinion less important just because he's not a minority?
Concise, well thought out, simple to understand, truly captures the essence of group behavior.
Very well done, Sir!!
Yours is one of the more insightful comments I've seen on /. in a while.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.
In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?
So please don't act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn't.
-Trillian
PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state.
I would disagree with you. This Monday, I might suggest that you contemplate where we would be if a Reverend had insisted that "Separate but Equal" was not. Saying that all people are equal came from a profoundly religious place. Political questions are rarely strictly technical question. Values and morality often come into play. To say that religion has no comment on politics would leave religion a shallow thing - just rites that one performs on the holy days. Politics would be equally improvised as well, having no moral compass. Freedom of Religion. Not Freedom from Religion. Love and Respect. Do not hate and condemn. Stepping off my soap box now.
Apparently, NL = The Netherlands, in case anyone else didn't know that...
And if the over rule the amendment you will see a National Constitutional amendment and it will pass.
Simple reason is that just about every politician including President Obama in the US has said that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The then say that they also believe that is should be left up to each state.
Well California voters have voted not once, not twice, but three times to not have gay marriage.
This will prove that it can not be left up to the states and it will go national. So far only two states out of 50 have gay marriage and those have not put it up to a popular vote. Do the math and you will see that a national constitutional amendment would pass very easily. Once passed it would be very hard to get ride of.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
There's the problem right there.
Prop 8 was a simple majority ballot proposition. Minor additions to the CA constitution are allowed using this method. Prop 8 supporters claim it's a minor addition.
However, modifications of the CA constitution require a 2/3rd super majority in the statehouse to create a constitutional convention in order to modify the state's constitution.
Since the CA constitution required recognition of gay marriage before, it requires modification in order to no longer recognize gay marriages (or so argue those who oppose prop 8).
So the situation is not as cut-and-dry as you were thinking
romans 1:26-1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
The book indicates that women are meant to be used. The writing style indicates that it is written to a male audience. The passage below would seem to prohibit being effeminate. If that applies to women, its a much stranger culture than I'd realized.
1 corinthians 6:9-6:10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
Whew, that's a level of whoosh I'm having a hard time distinguishing from trolling, but I'll make a go at explaining it. I'm not talking about workplace discrimination (which is a separate evil that I will leave aside for brevity), I'm talking about the laws of the society itself being altered by bigots to discriminate against a group of citizens. In my mind Prop 8 is functionally indistinguishable from the anti-mixed-race-marriage laws of the last century, which aptly met their demise in the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia.
Now I'm sure the nimrod brigade will respond with "BUT DUH STDDEV, WHY NO WORKPLACE IF GOOGLE COMPANY WORK WORK WORKPLACE DUH PC DUHHHHHH????". Let me try to fill in the very short lines and dots here: Google is a company whose primary operations are in California. If California passes laws that negatively impact the civil liberties of current or potential Google employees, Google is an interested party in trying to get those laws repealed because it places an artificial restraint on their already difficult job of finding the cream of the computing crop to solve hard problems. That supporting the efforts to repeal Prop 8 is a morally correct decision is just icing on the cake, from a business standpoint.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
The reason we supposedly fight wars is for the rights and freedoms of all men and women. If there was no constitution, there would be nothing worth fighting for. The "counter culture circle jerk" is probably the only reason you have the right to vote if you don't own property, or if you're black, or a woman, or a native American. The same circle jerk is the reason you don't work 16 hours a day from age 14 until you die of exposure to your work environment.
But let me translate for you: shut the fuck up, you ungrateful little shit. People have fought and died for your rights and their own, which are far more important than money. Or at least they used to be.
Those people are homosexual, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are black, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are women, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are athiests, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Jewish, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Those people are Swedes, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
Have you ever considered that your opinions may be considered bigoted?
they have this one nailed - everyone gets 2 marriages - first they go to the town hall and get hitched in the eyes of the state, then off to the religious institution (or not) of their choice to do it in front of their god.
So "civil marriage" and "religious marriage", one has to do with the state, taxes, laws, etc etc (rendering unto Caesar if you will), the other to do with the religious side of things, if that's your thing.
The real problem here is trying to conflate the two entities who tend to be involved with marriage
The answer here is simple - the state gets to decide who's civilly married (they have human rights laws, etc etc), churches get to choose who they will do the god thing with - they're both forms of 'marriage', both valid within their own sphere - the state doesn't get to tell the churches who they can marry, but equally the churches don't get to tell the state. Equally churches don't hand out tax benefits, the state doesn't get to confer blessing from dieties
Whether same-sex relationships should occur is a social issue, without being a political issue.
40+ states having laws that specifically forbid sanction of same-sex relationships kind of argues against you.
You are just arguing semantics at this point.
Social issues are what drives politics, then react to politics in a negative feedback role.
Social issues are what causes politics to happen in the first place.
Politics result from the attempt to resolve social issues between groups/individuals.
Think it through...
Think of it like this:
Social Issues are like parents, Politics are like the bastard step-children.
They are linked, driving each other.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
"I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage."
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
"Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults."
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
"If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?"
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
"PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org]. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state."
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
I see nothing inappropriate about a Church encouraging their members to be active in a current political issue and last time I checked people are free to donate to whatever cause they like.
However, there have been some allegations of the church contacting non-members which must be reported to the state and wasn't.
In your example, a person is singled out because of a trait, and is then systematically treated differently. This is not so for gays, who are treated the same as everyone else. (There is no prohibition for gays to marry, after all - then you might have a point).
None of those are choices you make in life. I did not choose to be born in Sweden, and cannot really do anything about it, a gay man did not choose to become gay, and cannot do anything about it. A religious fundamentalist chose to become one, and can do something about it, just like a racist chose to become one, and can do something about it.
They may have been brainwashed as children or whatever, but that's really not an excuse for any kind of intelligent person to let such nonsense influence what rights other people should or should not have.
The issue before the Court is whether the amendment passed is or is not a fundamental change to the state's form of government. Those require legislative approval, whereas other amendments do not.
The potential impact on those affected by the amendment may be a valid political concern, but it is not a valid legal concern, nor does it have any bearing on the only possible reason to declare the amendment invalid.
The only other possible claim is that it's invalid under the Federal constitution, in which case it will end up in a Federal court, and eventually be considered "valid" by SCOTUS by a 5-4 vote.
There's a potential for some nasty backlash if the court does overturn this proposition as well - a possible voter backlash forcing the state legislature to vote the court as constituted out of existence or limiting it's jurisdiction radically.
Using the judiciary to overturn any referendum that passes a majority vote is dangerous ground.
Allegory wars! Argument by allegory - powerful, and usually wrong (because the devil is always in the details, no?).
More specifically, your example only works because we have hammered out a consensus (in the US) on the topics of freedom of conscience and religion, and the role of the state in those areas.
That doesn't mean that the principles that we hold dear with regards to those areas can then be freely extrapolated to any area (such as marriage).
I don't follow how the particular marital laws in a state would prohibit workers. Google is probably one of the best software companies in the US and probably the world. If people want to work there and are gay, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to forgo the term "married." California has laws already on the books that enable every other right they would get as a married couple.
So why bother? The only other reason is that someone at Google wants to use their law team for political purposes, which I think shareholders won't be too happy about.
Me: "I don't think same-sex unions should be endorsed by the government."
You: "People said the same thing about interracial marriages."
Me: "So you think the government should approve of homosexual unions?"
You: "Of course."
Me: "People said the same thing about slavery."
According to the Bible, the only acceptable reason for a divorce is if your spouse committed adultery. Otherwise, if you divorce and remarry, you've committed adultery yourself. Why doesn't the church fight as hard to enforce this rule of divorce as they fight to prevent marriage?
Actually, you pay about 10 or 15% more in taxes when you get married but don't have kids, and both spouses have about the same income. Basically, the tax rate for Married Filing Jointly is higher for a given income than the same Single rate for 1/2 that income. Plus deductions for things like mortgage interest deductions, RothIRAs, charitable deductions, etc phase our for MFJ filers at less than 2X the caps for Single filers.
So, yeah, unless you have kids, no one gets married for tax reasons.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
In California domestic partnerships have pretty much the same rights as married couples; community property is IIRC one remaining gap.
But, "separate but equal" is a discredited legal doctrine for almost everything else, why not marriage.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
As a Bay Area resident, let me say:
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
But seriously, it's not that bad.
> The only actual arguments I've seen against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs.
Okay, I'll bite. This is my opinion after some consideration, and I suspect my libertarian, pragmatic perspective will show. I am currently unpersuaded, but could be, to change my mind. I would welcome any calm discussion on the point.
I support marriage as an important government interest, with appurtenant rights, benefits, and the like. The simplest reason is that marriage produces children, and provides a support structure in which they can be raised to responsible adults. We, as a society, acknowledge this. That's why we don't cede children to the state to raise in some nationwide program. That's why we return displaced children to foster families (albeit often imperfectly). Marriage is a family structure that grows the population and, this is important for the government, creates future citizens of the country in the most healthy way we have in widescale practice.
There it is. The government of our society places a value on citizens for a future government. To encourage future citizens -- thus continuing the government and society -- the government provides benefits to its citizens who form the family structure. Yes, some married couples chose not to have children, or cannot. That does not, in any way, contradict the nuclear family's benefits and the government's interest in supporting them. These benefits have a dollar value attached. Tax credits, insurance breaks, free spousal benefits -- these are all provided to married couples at a cost to the government. In return, the average married couple provides children, which continue society.
This is the secular, often unspoken purpose. There are societal reasons, including legitimatizing heredity, or religious reasons, but the reason the government supports marriage with rights and benefits is that it guarantees a future for the country.
Gay couples cannot produce children. Any children present in a family headed by a gay couple are artificially placed and impossible without assistance from a third party. Considering our chromosomal structures, this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, with the possible exception of artificially created daughters for lesbian couples. Regardless, gay couples simply cannot reproduce. They can adopt -- as can single or heterosexual couples -- where the law permits. (I don't support impeding adoption for gays, by the way.)
Gay couples are formed for societal, personal reasons that have nothing to do with marriage in the religious or governmental definitions. The congregation of gays as couples makes perfect sense to some of them. Love is, truly, blind. There is no need for marriage, of any type, for a gay couple to live out their life in harmony with each other. The drive for marriage arises for two reasons that I can understand:
1) Societal acceptance and recognition on par with heterosexual marriages; and
2) Access to rights and benefits accorded married partners
The notion that gay couples desire government intervention and labeling to validate their relationship sickens me more than anything I hear from either side of this debate. My position is non-religious.
The desire for a group of individuals to require society to extend a set of rights and privileges to them in exchange for... nothing is pure entitlement. At base, with religion and talk of rights placed aside, this is what we're talking about.
Marriage as a right is a canard in this day and age, for governmental purposes. Marriage is still discriminatory as practiced by religious groups. If marriage as a right were at stake, the gay community should be outlawing religions that practice it. But it's not. Marriage as a government right doesn't exist.
Anyone can be married by a religion, and happily so to the end of their days. The state chooses not to recognize some marriages, however, such as polyamorist marriages. The reason a seemingly child-buster like that is no
All the time.
Don't agree?
Think for a second, do you discriminate against Tweekers? Crackheads? Screaming preachers (whore mongers!)? Blithering morons?
There are 'protected classes' of people that it is illegal to discriminate against. Race, creed and color are the classic protected group characteristics. Gender is a newer arrival.
At its core the question is if fags are like blacks (inherent trait) or if they are like screaming preachers/morons/drunks (obnoxious choices, legal but disdained).
I don't think most gays even want to get married. They just want what they can't have ('Reg can't have a baby, not having a womb which is nobodies fault, no even the Romans. But he can have the right to have babies...'). I say as they have legal 'domestic partnerships' then we must ether take away their 'shacked up gay couple benefits' or extend the same to co-habitating straight couples. Business will certainly go with the no-benes answer in most cases.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
on libertarian and constitutional grounds (i.e., constitutions are meant to define and limit government power, not limit citizen rights), I do think gays have been their own worst enemies on this. I am old enough to remember when the gays argued, "what I do on my own bedroom is my own business." And this made sense to me, just don't shove it in my face and ask me to approve. I don't know what my parents do in bed, and I still love them. Why do I need to know what you do in bed?
But now, they want public ratification of their relationships; no longer are they arguing the bedroom thing (since Lawrence v Texas). And since civil unions are about giving gays the same legal rights, is this really about equal rights, or is it a symbolic thing about forcing the world to accept them and their agenda? Is this simply more tedious identity politics, "look and me, I am (fill in appropriate victocrat group)"?
I can also fully understand Christians, as much as I think they have hijacked my Republican Party, and as much as I think they use pretextual arguments about this (i.e., "protecting marriage"); I do see how they might be concerned that they might be forced to accept gays as priests, rent rooms to them, etc, or be sued for discrimination. Even the article submitter expects the Christian Microsoft employee to abandon his beliefs and adopt submitter's views. Uh, mainstream Christians think homosexuality is a sin, like it or not. That's how it works in America, people can disagree with you. Once again, I keep hearing the Left say they are about dissent - until you dissent with them.
Compare: Western Europe, where Christians can be tried for civil rights violations for calling homosexuality a sin. Which system do you prefer, liberty-minded Slashdotters?
For the record, as a "small-l" libertarian, I think gays should be able to marry, or better yet, that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, other than recording it to prevent stealth polygamy by one party. But as a libertarian, I think Christians should be able to deny gays from renting if they disprove of that lifestyle. Liberty for gays, liberty for Christians. It's actually one of those weird, anachronistic rights that nobody likes to emphasize, you know, the First Amendment, freedom of association?
And anyone against granting them a right that never existed in the first place is a apparently homophobe. O rly? So I have to agree with your agenda or I hate you? I have to change thousands of years of tradition overnight or I hate gays? Nonsense.
I do believe that gays have alienated a lot of people in a generally liberal state (funny how a majority of blacks and Hispanics were pro-Prop 8 - strange bedfellows there, Dems) who might be for them otherwise. But yelling at people that they must adopt your position is not winning hearts and minds. Neither is declaring a right by judicial fiat. You'd think they would have learned from 2004, when the Mass Supremes legalized gay marriage, and then 8 states adopted gay marriage bans in response - and GWB got reelected largely on a family values platform (a plurality of Bush voters in 2004 said this in exit polls). Yeah, that really helped the gay cause.
The gays have acted horribly after this vote, whining, stomping their feet, refusing to respect the voters' decision, almost making me regret my vote. But I won't compromise my principles even if they are annoying as hell.
As Nietzsche said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
The sad thing is, Cali is a liberal state. If the gays waited 5 or 10 years, instead of trying to bypass the democratic process through the courts, Californians would have probably have legalized gay marriage on their own. But the People don't like having key decisions made for them by unelected elites - the exact point that pro-choice, SCOTUS swing vote Sandra Day O'Connor made about Roe v. Wade.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
My first thought was that he was obviously wrong. If you scored the game winning touchdown in the Super Bowl but the ref blew the call, it would be worth risking an entire season of timeouts to challenge the call. Sure, you wouldn't risk a timeout in the second half of the first game of the season to challenge the spot from 4th and 11 to 4th and 10. But clearly there would be plays on which the risk would be easily justified.
But what I really thought was, why should that matter? Just because you don't think the play is a good idea, why should it be illegal? You're not forced to use it -- if you think it's a bad idea, why wouldn't you want other teams to have the chance to use it? I'm sure most coaches who think the quarterback option is a bad offense, but no one says it should be illegal. Or at least if they do, people laugh at them. Which is fun.
The fundamental problem keeping America from an inclusive gay marriage policy is that people want very much to have their personal preferences made law. Whatever they like, they think that should be the law.
And what they like, they get, primarily, from their parents' religion. Ultimately, it is this attitude -- My personal preferences should be made law -- which is the problem. It is this mindset which must be specifically fought against. If we can win that battle, the religious battle -- which we cannot win in any of our lifetimes -- will not matter.
As an agnostic, can you give one, single reason WHY not to allow gay marriage? How does it affect YOU? Why do you want to deny someone a right you enjoy because they happen to love a person of his/her own gender? What possible reason could there be if not religious, or just plain homophobic?
"But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint."
So now having a particular political opinion should disqualify you from being an HR director?! This whole debate if FUBAR. We are only 2 steps away from everyone being a complete hypocrite. Does anyone else see that there's something wrong with this picture?
We have got to get rid of this whole government thing before it kills us all.
"his actions are un-American and bigoted"
Some would make that claim about homosexuality. Others would (ironically) make that claim about about making that claim. What makes you such an expert?
"Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking."
So, when you agree with the results of the democratic process, it's wrong for others to "take action", but when you disagree, it's ok to take to the streets? And somehow, he's the one that's causing the problem?! You need to think about the role of government in your life and come to a consistent position before you do something drastic like that. We don't actually need another civil war. . .
...that his religious beliefs should be a basis on what civil rights people should have?
And do Mikes religious beliefs include stoning to death adulterers, people who eat pork, plant two different crops side by side, wear clothes made from different cloths, or people who work on Sunday?
If Mike believes in 'traditional marriage' according to the Bible, how many wives does he have? How bout that sex-with-servants exception?
"But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint."
Yes, that's as odd as him cracking Negro jokes from the old south.
There is only one side in the wrong here, and it's not 'teh gays'.
Marriage should be replaced by a comprehensive standard (but modifiable) civil contract between two or more consenting adults like any other business contract.
Then go ahead and fucking do it already, and stop using it as a red herring on the issue of gay marriage, and only gay marriage. You're putting the cart before the horse.
At its core the question is if fags are like blacks (inherent trait) or if they are like screaming preachers/morons/drunks (obnoxious choices, legal but disdained).
I definitely chose to be gay. There are so many exciting parts about being gay--the discrimination I face on an almost daily basis, the scarring childhood and the emotional issues that continue to this day because of it, and the lack of civil rights I have. It makes TOTAL SENSE that I'd make a conscious choice to experience those horrible things instead of just being another straight guy, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I don't think most gays even want to get married. They just want what they can't have ('Reg can't have a baby, not having a womb which is nobodies fault, no even the Romans. But he can have the right to have babies...').
Um, gross generalization. I for one do want to get married to a man who I will love for the rest of my life, whether the law recognizes that or not. Do you know any, you know, gay people?
I say as they have legal 'domestic partnerships' then we must ether take away their 'shacked up gay couple benefits' or extend the same to co-habitating straight couples. Business will certainly go with the no-benes answer in most cases.
You mean the government should give straight couples common law marriages and the right to be married in the first place? Yeah clearly gay people have so many more 'shacked up couple benefits' than straight people. Like not being able to get married.
By the infinities, man, "religion" is not a monolith.
(Posting here mostly because the ACs are still at 0.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Blacks of course have the right to marry. The same race.
Which is exactly the same rights whites have, to marry the same race.
You cannot write valid law denying gay marriage for exactly the the same reason you cannot write a valid law denying interracial marriages. Under the Equal Protection clause of the constitution you cannot use race, gender, or religion, as a basis to discriminate legal treatment.
You cannot examine the races of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-race vs interracial applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between hetero vs gay applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the religions of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-faith vs inter-faith applicants for approval or denial.
Under the Constitution the law MUST be blind to race, gender, and religion.
I'm sure you pretty much agree that that is a GOOD thing, except you want to carve out an exception for marriage law, just because you dislike certain people getting married. And that is no more reasonable and no more valid than the people who did (and still do) want to deny interracial marriage. No different. Writing gender-based-discrimination into the law is no better than writing race-based-discrimination into the law. The law SHOULD and MUST BE blind to race gender and religion of people.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Does this mean that Google prefers gay people to Catholics, Blacks and Hispanics? Seems like Google is being anti-family, if that is the case. Google would like folks who will work twelve hour days, eat dinner at work and continue to work. Google is this Star Trek Enterprise world where you have the kids thrown in an episode, every once in a while. If Google is going to toss out this level of care, perhaps they need to look at an even larger picture. Their care for Africa is wonderful but one would have to take that perceived level of care with a grain of salt if Google doesn't have a bigger picture for humanity.
I like the "wait one term" part. At least it gives you, the voter, the ability to review your government's changes before they can take effect. In most countries the voters are often bullshitted into believing the crap they tell before elections just to learn that there's a difference between words before and actions after elections.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"God forbids it because it is harmful for us, as a society and as individuals."
Surely God could have forbid it by not designing beings who are capable of being attracted to the same sex. God in the eyes of many religions appears to be a typical PHB.
That "majority of voters" is such hogwash. The CA constitution was amended by amended by a *minority* of voters, not a majority. Voters are those are eligible to vote not just those who actually cast a vote on a particular ballot.
At the time of Prop 8, CA had 23,208,710 eligible voters. Of those only 6,838,107 actually voted to change the constitution. That's only 29.5% of actual voters. The process is a crock whether Prop 8 passed or not. Something as fundamental as a constitution should not changeable by a minority. Such a process can and will be abused.
Note that the US constitution cannot be changed in this manner. It requires 2/3 of *all* eligible members of Congress and 3/4 of *all* states to explicitly vote yes, not just those who decide to case a vote. Any vote not cast is effectively a No.
The framers of the US Constitution were much smarter and required an absolute super-majority of those eligible to make such fundamental changes.
Everyone was treated equally under miscegenation laws as well. Everyone could marry someone of the same race. If you preferred someone of a different race, well, "having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority."
The CA Supreme court, who job it is to interpret the CA constitution, found that denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Simply disagreeing with them doe snot that they made law by judicial fiat. Attack the ruling if you wish. They did make their arguments available. Refute them based on the CA constitution and prior CAS rulings.
As for "democracy": The CA amendment process allows the CA constitution to be changed by a minority of eligible voters as was the case in Prop 8 where only 29.5% of eligible voters made a change to the constitution. That's not democracy, no matter what the subject matter of the ballot was or is.
It was only 29.5% of the people (eligible voters) who made the change, not a majority. The process is flawed regardless of the amendment. If merely allow a simple majority of people who cast a ballot to change the constitution abuse is sure to follow.
Because CA allows only a simple majority of cast ballots to change the constitution, 29.5% of actual eligible voters made the change in Prop 8. Yeah for democracy! Sigh. A minority was able to change the fundamental document of the state. Is that scary or what? Regardless of the subject matter.
A statement that contradicts itself is a sure sign of hypocracy.
i'm a gay male, and i could care less about marriage. i think civil unions are the way to go.
Not skin colour, fiddly bits or where they like to put them, or their imaginary friends.
I don't need to tolerate a cock in my ass to tolerate gay people, nor do I need to tolerate honour killings in order to tolerate fundamentalist Muslims.
The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now.
Yeah, I know Orwell wasn't writing about pr0n, but still...
Perhaps the totals of all types of taxes in Cal aren't high enough, but the distribution of the sources of those taxes is terribly skewed compared to most other states because of prop 13, which -- thirty years ago -- leveled property taxes at then-current levels. As a consequence, Cal is faced with the prospect of making up for the resulting massive deficit by increasing *other* kinds of taxes... and while property taxes at least vaguely approximate a "wealth" tax, and are therefor essentially progressive... the other compensating kinds of taxes are not, and are eating out the foundations of the infrastructure.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I don't understand why you think it would be "surprising" that someone charged with diversity and sensitivity training could be religiously against gay marriage. Just because gay marriage is against someone's religion doesn't mean they can't be sensitive about the issue.
So, begin gay is a race, gender or religion?
And here I was thinking that it was a sexual preference.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
The Government operates by restricting freedom. Saying that the Government was ever intended to protect freedom is a contradiction.
Technically, according to the founders, the purpose of the government is to mitigate conflicts of rights between individuals, that is to pass laws to decide where a given action by one person infringes upon the rights of another. For example, the freedom to throw a punch generally ends when it connects with someone else's person or possessions.
More importantly, the US government began by enumerating individual rights the government of the US were specifically banned from messing with. Such was their respect for individual freedoms
The US constitution specifically grants the states the right to write laws. Marriage is not a right which is explicitly or implicitly (in my opinion) guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. This amendment to the state constitution is completely legal.
The federal constitution specifies certain rights that cannot be infringed by the government and that includes by state governments. For example, state cannot pass laws that violate the first amendment restricting speech. When my state passed laws banning swearing in front of women, that law was challenged in the courts. It was overturned because it violated two items in the US constitution, both free speech and equal rights for women.
The constitution bans discrimination by the government based upon race, religion and sex. That's why the state interracial marriage bans were struck down by the Supreme court in short order and that is why bans on same-gender marriages will be struck down as soon as they make it to through the courts.
"The rule of law is not always just"
That's true, but if you think the law is important, you should follow it.
Ever heard of civil disobedience? It's how a lot of unjust laws in our country were overturned.
"there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it"
And this is one of those times?! Seriously?!!!! What are you thinking? This law doesn't take anything real away from anybody.
I never said this was time to disobey the law, just fight against it, and I was thinking of fighting within the courts. It's not like it should take much, just get it into the supreme court as quickly as possible so justice can be done.
I'm just sickened that so many people are so prejudiced and at the same time do not value freedom such that states could pass these laws in the first place. I think everyone who voted for one of these bans should stop using the word "freedom" when reciting the pledge. They can just be quiet when that part of the pledge comes up so as not to make hypocrites of themselves.
It doesn't make any sense at all to complain that others are acting illegally, but then make plans to act illegally yourself.
First, it was your assumption that I was advocating illegal behavior and second, they are acting illegally in passing a law. You don't see the contradiction in lawmakers intentionally writing laws they know are invalid after having sworn an oath to uphold the US constitution in order to get into office?
Everyone thinks their way is the right way, this not something that is unique to you.
Yeah, but people on the other side of this issue are on the anti-freedom side. They're fighting against the ideals upon which this nation was founded, ideals of individual freedom and no government mandates on the basis of religion. Equivocating that there are two sides is pointless and doesn't make the other side any more ethical or legal.
For what it's worth,
1) the process for amending the national constitution is roughly comparable to the difficult process you describe for NL constitutional amendments. The US constitution has only been amended f fairly small number of times in the last 200-odd years; and
2) we don't really take state constitutions particularly seriously around here. State laws and state constitutions are subject to the US constitution, and that is where the question will ultimately have to go. The Contents of the California constitution won't mean squat when we get around to dealing with the issue at the US Constitutional level.
Populationwise, California as part of the US is about equivalent to Gelderland province as a fraction of the Netherlands. Imagine Gelderland had a constitution relating to local laws, and that the Gelderland constitution was subject to the Netherlands' constitution. Screwing around with the Gelderland constitution would just be a big-sounding way of fighting over local laws. In a fundamentally national issue, any local battles and local results will be temporary and irrelevant once the battle really gets up to the national level.
And yes it does make a constitution change slow as molasses
Even slower over here.
Individuals battle city and county government in court for for the right to marry.
The local court fights and overrules the local government.
The state courts fight and overrule the local courts.
The state legislature fights and passes a law to overrule the state court.
It goes to the state supreme court ruling the law violates the state constitution.
A public inititive to change the state constitution to overrule the state supreme court.
[[Note we are currently here]]
A state court battle over bizarre issues for whether the state amendment was valid or not.
It then moves to the federal courts...
and the federal appeals courts...
and then the US Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court can either rule gay marriages nationally legal or not, or may rule on some stupid detail and send the issue back to the lower courts.... which just repeats several of the steps until the Supreme Court does actually rule on the real issue.
Oh.... and I forgot that the national legislature already has passed a law trying to overrule the lower courts and attempting to premptively overrule the federal courts. And of course THAT law is going to have to be litigated in the federal courts. And the national legislature will get involved again when federal courts start ruling.
But anyway, we haven't even begun anything for amending the real US Constitution. It will probably be a couple of years before we have an official Constitutional position on the issue, and only then that one side or the other would seriously try to initiate the difficult amendment process. And even then, it is almost certain to fail no matter which way things go. There are enough people in the middle and on both sides opposed to the drastic step of Constitutional Amendment to deadlock any amendment attempt by either side.
So essentially we're waiting for the Supreme Court to hand down a US Constitutional ruling on the issue. And of course the US Constitution doesn't currently explicitly address the issue, meaning the judges will have to interpret and fuzzy principles and fuzzy rights from various sections of the constitution, so there will be enough wiggle room for judges to apply creative ideology in their reasoning. So the liberal judges will rule one way, and the conservative judges will rule the other way, and the one judge who is kinda-sorta in the middle will point to some random spot in the constitution and single handedly make up a rule for the nation. And any attempt to amend the Constitution to change that is going to fail.
But in the long run even that isn't going to matter. It's a simple matter of population demographics. The younger generation is overwhelmingly in support or gay marriage, with the opposition being primarily by the older gener
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Is whether its constitutional.
I could give a crap less over Google whining bout how this impacts their hiring ability. Its completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The issue at had is:
Was the process a legal one, did it conform to state law?
I have a feeling if the court overturns this on such a specious argument of wording, that you will see several of the justices who vote in favor of overturning will be removed via recall, and a far more hostile court will emerge.
Don't subvert direct democracy as written into the Constitution of CA, and instead try to impose your will against those of the majority via the courts and judicial fiat.
Prop-8's, get over it, you lost. Do not force this down the public's throat, you'll only force a bigger backlash than before.
Try convincing 6% of the people that voted the other way, and you'll win the next time.
Do the American thing, make your case to the public and try again!
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Actually, you are on the anti-freedom side of this argument, because you advocate government action, and that entails the use of force against individuals.
You say that your "right" to throw a punch ends where it contacts someone else. Why, then, is it okay for a police officer to do do the same? Surely their "rights" end there too. The government is a vessel for granting authority to certain individuals. This gay marriage thing is a prime example. Gay "couples" want the legal authority to exclude family members from hospital rooms, or the legal authority to sue their employer to offer their partner specific benefits. It is already messed up that straight couples can do this. I guess you want everyone to be in an equally fucked-up situation. I say "why bother". It's not a step toward freedom, it's a step away from it.
like it or not, homosexuality is not skin color, it is not a benign superficial trait. it is in fact an abnormality. that being said, unlike other abnormalities like pedophilia it is relatively benign. its not entirely benign as it is fundamentally against a species to propagate itself, luckily its not contagious so theres no reason to fear it. that being said, its nothing like race at all. civil unions were enough and they should have left it at that. trying to redefine marriage which is clearly a heterosexual union was a mistake. and don't' get into the separate isn't equal thing. it is, or else women shouldn't have separate bathrooms:P
In other words, "homosexuality is irrelevant". Yes, heard that one before, in innumerable forms.
So, begin gay is a race, gender or religion?
Perhaps it will be less confusion to you if you think "same gender marriage" rather than "gay marriage". You are not actually trying to deny gays the right to marry - you are fine with a gay woman marrying a gay man.
What you are trying to do is IDENTICAL to the interracial marriage situation, based on gender rather than race. Note that the two sections below are identical, except that I substituted gender for race, and I wrote one with "they want" and the other with "you want".
=======RACE=======
Some people wanted to (and still want to!) deny interracial marriage.
They want the law to examine the GENDERS of marriage applicants. They want the law to DISCRIMINATE different treatment of marriage applicants based on that racial examination, approving the applicants they like and denying the applicants they don't like.
That is unconstitutional. You cannot use race, gender, or religion as basis to discriminate treatment under the law.
=======GENDER=======
You want to deny same gender marriage.
You would need the law to examine the GENDERS of marriage applicants. You would need the law to DISCRIMINATE different treatment of marriage applicants based on that racial examination, approving the applicants you like and denying the applicants you don't like.
That is unconstitutional. You cannot use race, gender, or religion as basis to discriminate treatment under the law.
Trying to deny same gender marriages is legally identical to trying to deny mixed race marriages. You are merely swapping gender examination and gender-based discrimination for racial examination and race-based discrimination.
==============
See? No difference, nothing more than race based discrimination vs gender based discrimination.
In 1968 lots of stats had laws denying mixed race marriages, and they were all found unconstitutional, null and void. The legal basis and constitutional issues are identical. Trying to deny same gender marriages or trying to deny mixed faith marriages is no more constitutional than trying to deny interracial marriage. There is simply no way to write a constitutionally valid law that does what you want it to do.
You probably agree that the law should be blind to race, gender, and religion. You are just running into a logical contradiction between that and what you want to put into marriage law. You can't have both. You either need to give up on banning same-ender marriage, or you need to abandon the principal of racial, gender, and religious equality under the law... and you would also have to successfully amend the Constitution to allow race/gender/religious discimination in the law.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Your argument is false, based on improper data collection and hastily-constructed conjecture.
Allow me to explain:
Darwin's hypotheses apply to species, not individuals. Humans as a species have evolved to the point where we are now, and we will continue to adapt to our environment (or adapt it to ourselves, which ability is another adaptation). The same (demonstrably false) arguments you made in this post's parent could be used in exactly the same way you used them to disprove the existence of sterile drones in ant or bee colonies, which is quite obviously false. Similarly, mules cannot reproduce themselves, and yet they still somehow exist. Someone's sexual preferences do not magically disqualify them from being a capable care provider (whether for children or others), nor do they prevent someone from being a productive member of society.
The key phrasing I will attack is as follows:
This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction.
The first statement is completely false, as I explained in the paragraph above the quote. I will now explain to you how G/L/B/T humans do not violate the second statement in the quoted text.
The produced offspring (in this case, humans with a preference for sexual relations with other same-gender humans (or is it a distaste for the opposite gender?)) are not necessarily able to reproduce themselves, this is true. However, their continuing presence in our species may actually indicate a need that their presence fulfills (via the same theories you are misusing). Please keep in mind that homosexuality is not new, there are documented cases from thousands of years ago.
Oh, and on a personal note: my IQ is higher than yours by nearly a dozen points, despite your "50k in the bank" and my apparent financial lack; Furthermore, my testing was done by an actual testing center, not some ad-based website. Fortunately, I recognize that the testing criteria are flawed (as most experts agree), and I don't try to hold that up as an indicator of higher intelligence or fitness for a particular purpose. If I did, I might think myself better than you... oh, wait.
Well-executed bullshit is still bullshit. Move along.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Most of you are missing the point on the insurance thing.
It's not about assigning the benefits to whomever you'd like in the event of your death or whatnot...
It's about whether your partner is AUTOMATICALLY OFFERED COVERAGE. Having insurance is important, no? Well, your spouse is automatically assumed, in most cases, to be covered under your policy. "Domestic partner"? Not so much.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
Again, I'm not really concerned with homosexuality being a choice, biologically determined, or a combination of the two - I don't think it factors into whether gay marriage should be legal.
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
But I'm not arguing about what people have a problem with, but what government should be doing. Obviously, you're right - people are often thrilled when government protects their definition of 'good' behavior. But that's not a response to the argument "The government should not be doing so."
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
Again, I don't think you're responding to the crux of my argument, that the government should not be regulating the behavior of consenting adults (or in the interaction of the sexes).
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
I don't think I said "essential right" everywhere, but I would consider marriage between consenting adults an inherent right. And, in the same way religious minorities and people saying things others don't like are just as protected as religious majorities and people saying things others do like, so should those interested in marriages between consenting adults that the majority of the population would not enter into.
-Trillian