6 ms·
Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition
by caryme 16y ago
Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples..."
- chc 16y agoAlthough I don't disagree with that statement, I don't see how it advances a legal basis for reversing the amendment.
- anonymouslambda 16y agoThis is the legal basis for the decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
- chc 16y agoBut this isn't reviewing a government action; it's reviewing a citizen initiative. It seems like the "community standards" argument must surely hold here if it does anywhere, even if the community is being irrational.
- anonymouslambda 16y agoYes, it's an citizen initiative, but once passed it is a law that is enforced by the government. When a gay couple goes to get a marriage license, it's the government that is denying them one.
- jwhitlark 16y agoWe have a constitution to protect our basic rights from the tyranny of the majority. This is an example of the most important function of our courts.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- fuzzmeister 16y agoIt's fascinating that they only used rational basis instead of intermediate or strict scrutiny. While precedent currently places sexual orientation in the realm of rational basis, I think that an extremely strong case could be made that a law concerning the right of gays to marry involves a suspect classification. All of the following criteria appear to be true: - The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes. - The group is a "discrete" or "insular" minority. - They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait. - They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (In this case, they are subject to the tyranny of the majority.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification) It will be interesting to see what happens when this reaches the Supreme Court.
- d4ft 16y agoAs far as I know, courts in the past have ruled that being gay is not an "immutable or highly visible trait." There were however some recent decisions that questioned that rationale.
- jtheory 16y agoBecause it's not highly visible as long as you stay carefully in the closet.... It reminds me of how "don't ask don't tell" seems fairly reasonable until I imagine a bunch of soldiers away from home sitting around together, waiting for things (which they do an awful lot). Then I try to imagine navigating hundreds or thousands of hours of those conversations while somehow avoiding revealing my sexuality.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI'd be curious to see if the courts will apply that same argument to other laws. For instance, will/should the courts eliminate all marriage benefits on the grounds that marital subsidies simply enshrine into law the notion that couples are superior to singles? I'd also be curious to see if gay marriage supporters believe the courts made the correct decision, and if they would apply the same logic to other situations.
- gcheong 16y agoI'd be all for it - in the subsidy case anyway. And I'm married.
- kjksf 16y agoYou're using very simplistic and very wrong definition of what equality and discrimination is. For example, denying gay marriage discriminates against gays by denying a specific, identifiable group (gays) the right to marry that is given to everyone else. You're trying to claim that the same logic applies to e.g. laws against smoking which, in your naive interpretation, "discriminate" against smokers. The crucial and not so subtle difference is that law against smoking bans a behavior. It would be discrimination if we had laws that prohibits smokers to marry. So yes, the courts made the right decision I do want the courts to apply constitution in the future to abolish laws that violate mine and yours constitutional rights, equality being among them. Using your reasoning serial killers are a minority and laws against killing are discrimination.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoGays have the right to marry an opposite sex partner. They may not prefer this, but they have the right to do it. Thus, laws prohibiting same sex marriage discriminate against people who prefer same sex relationships. Similarly, renters have the right to get a mortgage subsidy by buying a home. They may not prefer it, but they have the right to do it. Thus, the mortgage subidy discriminates against people who prefer rentals. Should we therefore eliminate mortgage subsidies (or any number of other laws which favor one preference over another) subsidies based on the same logic?
- mynameishere 16y agoAt propagating the species, they are quite a bit superior. Anyway. Chinese historians 200 years from now will scratch their heads over this sequence in the fall of the West.
- catch23 16y agoIt's hard to say though... given that being gay is most likely in the genes, which obviously come from a heterosexual creation. So if the gay population will always have a 10% yield in the gene pool, I don't think natural selection will have any kind of effect.