5 ms·

Be aware that Prop 8 called for the removal of certain rights from people that they had gained before through a legal process, so "simply" isn't very clear cut.

by Argorak 13y ago

Be aware that Prop 8 called for the removal of certain rights from people that they had gained before through a legal process, so "simply" isn't very clear cut. Prop 8 wasn't a mental exercise for those hit by it. This is a good read covering all the complexities behind this "simple" action (not opinion, by the way). http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1844711.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1844711.html

001sky 13y ago
that they had gained before through a legal process This is disengenous. Special intersts--of all stripes--gain and lose privledges everyday though "a legal process". This whole discussion of "inclusion" is rediculous and vindictive. There is a reason people vote with blind ballots in elections.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right in the United States. Do you believe fundamental rights should be subjected to removal by majority vote?
  - V-2 13y ago
    But there is no one clear-cut, set in stone definition of marriage, is there? The whole argument is over that definition: what else. The concept of marriage can vary from culture to culture. It's a social construct, after all. Eg. polygamous marriages or marriages with minors are not legally recognized (in the US) either, even though they are in some parts of the world. The fundamental question then is: "what culture is ours?". If the answer was unambiguous, there'd be no dispute to start with.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Fortunately the United States already has the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution -- all persons must be afforded the equal protection of the laws, and all persons must be afforded due process of law. And the existing jurisprudence on the Fourteenth Amendment removes any possibility of debate or ambiguity on this point.
      - V-2 13y ago
        "all persons must be afforded the equal protection of the laws, and all persons must be afforded due process of law" Which must obviously include children and people who'd like to form polygamous marriages... am I right?
      - 001sky 13y ago
        The concept of marriage is a political concept. It is not in the consititution nor is it in the 14th Amendment. Nobody of any persuasion has "a right to marriage". The entire concept could be outlawed overnight without any problem. This counterexample is pretty strong and proves your "lack of ambiguity" is misguided. The current legal debate is simply a function of the inter-relation of a bunch of other laws (eg tax laws and healthcare) that arguably do result in odd/discriminatory outcomes for some people in some circumstances. But again, those outcomes could be solved--from a constitutional perspective--by eliminating those laws altogether (rather than trying to fix them). Remember that income tax is not a right of the government. It is simply a law, and one that was originally uncontsititional. Same thing with Social Security and Healthcare. These laws have grown "after the fact" and it is their reference that creates the problem of discrimination. It is not a problem with the concept of marriage (and even if it was, we could simply eliminate it altogether). Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here. The sort of vindictive bullying going on (especially in public like this) is inexcusable and dis-proportionate.
        masklinn 13y ago
        > The concept of marriage is a political concept. No. The concept of marriage in this context is a civil and legal one. It's used for politicking, but its core is a tripartite contract granting specific legal statuses before the state apparatus, and a number of civil statuses following from the legal one. Now you may want to argue that this should not exist, but that point of view's not exactly relevant when the starting point is not somebody fighting to end civil marriage but fighting to remove access to civil marriage for a specific minority. > Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here. Except it does not actually apply: * people don't object to him being bigoted and hateful they object to him being CEO of Mozilla as a bigoted and hateful person * free speech is not freedom from judgement of your peers following said speech * the first amendment does not apply to individuals, nobody's trying to involve the state here
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
DangerousPie 13y ago
I am by no means a supporter of Prop 8, but while it did propose removing rights gained through a legal process, it did so through another legal process! Isn't that how democracy should work? You seem to be implying that any rights that have been ever been gained through a legal process should not be removable again, even if that process is legal too.
- V-2 13y ago
  My thought exactly. Argumentum ad absurdum (I don't mean it to be offensive) - abolition of slavery, too, "removed an already-existing right of certain persons". As I said, I'm not comparing gay marriage to slavery here, but the idea that granting certain rights should be "forward-only" is bizarre to say the least.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    It also added gave a lot of rights to another group, which Prop 8 didn't.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Marriage is, as I have written, recognized in the United States as a fundamental right. If you believe those should be subjected to majority votes, I would be terrified to live in a society run by you.
- masklinn 13y ago
  The operative word here is less "legal process" and more "removing rights". Prop 8 was not about opposing a motion to make marriage available to homosexual couples but to remove the right to marriage they'd got. And since prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional, its enactment was quite clearly an illegal act.

by Argorak 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

that they had gained before through a legal process This is disengenous. Special intersts--of all stripes--gain and lose privledges everyday though "a legal process". This whole discussion of "inclusion" is rediculous and vindictive. There is a reason people vote with blind ballots in elections.

ubernostrum 13y ago
Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right in the United States. Do you believe fundamental rights should be subjected to removal by majority vote?
- V-2 13y ago
  But there is no one clear-cut, set in stone definition of marriage, is there? The whole argument is over that definition: what else. The concept of marriage can vary from culture to culture. It's a social construct, after all. Eg. polygamous marriages or marriages with minors are not legally recognized (in the US) either, even though they are in some parts of the world. The fundamental question then is: "what culture is ours?". If the answer was unambiguous, there'd be no dispute to start with.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Fortunately the United States already has the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution -- all persons must be afforded the equal protection of the laws, and all persons must be afforded due process of law. And the existing jurisprudence on the Fourteenth Amendment removes any possibility of debate or ambiguity on this point.
    - V-2 13y ago
      "all persons must be afforded the equal protection of the laws, and all persons must be afforded due process of law" Which must obviously include children and people who'd like to form polygamous marriages... am I right?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      The concept of marriage is a political concept. It is not in the consititution nor is it in the 14th Amendment. Nobody of any persuasion has "a right to marriage". The entire concept could be outlawed overnight without any problem. This counterexample is pretty strong and proves your "lack of ambiguity" is misguided. The current legal debate is simply a function of the inter-relation of a bunch of other laws (eg tax laws and healthcare) that arguably do result in odd/discriminatory outcomes for some people in some circumstances. But again, those outcomes could be solved--from a constitutional perspective--by eliminating those laws altogether (rather than trying to fix them). Remember that income tax is not a right of the government. It is simply a law, and one that was originally uncontsititional. Same thing with Social Security and Healthcare. These laws have grown "after the fact" and it is their reference that creates the problem of discrimination. It is not a problem with the concept of marriage (and even if it was, we could simply eliminate it altogether). Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here. The sort of vindictive bullying going on (especially in public like this) is inexcusable and dis-proportionate.
      - masklinn 13y ago
        > The concept of marriage is a political concept. No. The concept of marriage in this context is a civil and legal one. It's used for politicking, but its core is a tripartite contract granting specific legal statuses before the state apparatus, and a number of civil statuses following from the legal one. Now you may want to argue that this should not exist, but that point of view's not exactly relevant when the starting point is not somebody fighting to end civil marriage but fighting to remove access to civil marriage for a specific minority. > Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here. Except it does not actually apply: * people don't object to him being bigoted and hateful they object to him being CEO of Mozilla as a bigoted and hateful person * free speech is not freedom from judgement of your peers following said speech * the first amendment does not apply to individuals, nobody's trying to involve the state here
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

DangerousPie 13y ago

I am by no means a supporter of Prop 8, but while it did propose removing rights gained through a legal process, it did so through another legal process! Isn't that how democracy should work? You seem to be implying that any rights that have been ever been gained through a legal process should not be removable again, even if that process is legal too.

V-2 13y ago
My thought exactly. Argumentum ad absurdum (I don't mean it to be offensive) - abolition of slavery, too, "removed an already-existing right of certain persons". As I said, I'm not comparing gay marriage to slavery here, but the idea that granting certain rights should be "forward-only" is bizarre to say the least.
- Argorak 13y ago
  It also added gave a lot of rights to another group, which Prop 8 didn't.
ubernostrum 13y ago
Marriage is, as I have written, recognized in the United States as a fundamental right. If you believe those should be subjected to majority votes, I would be terrified to live in a society run by you.
masklinn 13y ago
The operative word here is less "legal process" and more "removing rights". Prop 8 was not about opposing a motion to make marriage available to homosexual couples but to remove the right to marriage they'd got. And since prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional, its enactment was quite clearly an illegal act.