incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
Re: hateful rantshad_0November 12 2008, 07:52:52 UTC
Pointless digression, containing information that you probably already know even as a Canadian:
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. ... the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. ... Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [¶] We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Proponents of Proposition 8 argued that homosexuals could still enter into so-called civil unions that afforded many (though not all) of the benefits of civil marriage, and thus that Proposition 8 deprived them of no rights. Opponents of the proposition described the proponents' position as advocating the long-discredited doctrine of "separate but equal," in the hope of pointing out that it was essentially the same reasoning that the Supreme Court rejected in Brown. Even if civil unions were entirely "equal" to marriage, the argument goes, relegating homosexuals to this allegedly "separate but equal" institution instead of allowing them to marry should be unconstitutional.
As a practical matter, there are significant legal differences between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation, so Brown is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court would reach the same conclusion in this different context. Nevertheless, it is clear that the doctrine of "separate but equal" has had no place in the United States since 1954 (at least as it applies to race); as the Court held, separate is inherently unequal.
Here endeth the unnecessary lecture.
(I am curious as to the reason(s) why you would have voted yes on Proposition 8 if you lived in California. If you've explained yourself elsewhere, would you mind posting the link to it?)
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 08:31:16 UTC
re: Yes
Solely by the fact I don't want to condone, when given the opportunity to support a law with my vote, a morality which I consider wrong - not for my sake, or for pride, but from my perspective, for the good of individuals. Based on my faith, if I know that there are certain things we all do that are sinful, I would never want to say "that's ok, there's nothing wrong with that" - I would be lying, not speaking in good conscience. So I wouldn't want to support, by vote, ultimately having my say in what my government legislates, an act that would be detremental to the spirit of some individual.
Now again, I only say this because it's exercising a right afforded me by that government. Beyond that, I would not attempt to impose my own morals, myself, on other people. But in being given the right to have a say in how my government treats me, and what kind of morality it condones, then I'd certainly take advantage of it, as I would expect anyone else to, whether in agreement or not.
As for the lecture, that was very informative, thanks :)
Perhaps, "separate but equal" isn't a fully accurate term for what I'm meaning in this case, by that definition. At worst, it would be 'separate but equal' in the same way we have men's and women's washrooms. Otherwise, perhaps more appropriate would be 'different, but equal'.
In the case you outlined above, that separation was a matter of comfort, a matter of proximity that some people felt should be maintained, the reasoning still not actually promoting 'equality'. Separation to the degree that "you keep yourself, and we keep to ourselves, that way we don't have to worry about you". Yeah, I'd say that's essentially unconstitutional. In the case pertaining to the definition of marriage, it's a very different thing. People aren't being filtered and separated in like manner. Rather, it's a sharpening of definition and context of what really defines the union of two people - is it a legal matter, or is it a religious matter? What happens when the two meet? In that context, "separate but equal" is a matter of recognizing the legal rights of any two people for marital relations, while retaining (not separating away) the traditional, and religious definition of marriage in a Holy, God-blessed context.
I think people are far more tense now because there are churches that claim God will bless any two people in holy matrimony, so the opponents feel that there really is nothing now that is unique or sacred about a man/wife holy union - other forms of marriage are not only gaining legal ground, but now they're getting religious support for liberal-minded churches. It's not from hatred of homosexuals - for the most part at least, it's a matter of saving and supporting what is generally considered an untouchable, unnegotiable definition of the union of two people which God has stated is blessed.
So I'd say it's getting tense on two fronts - where activists take anti-gay marriage to extreme political battles, and where gay marriage proponents (couples or liberal churches) are creeping into core religious territory.
I'm only truly concerned about the latter. But for the former, if I exercise my voting rights, then I won't lie, I'll be honest, and vote with my conscience for what I feel is ultimately better for my country/region/etc. Otherwise, to each his own - I won't offensively impose my morality on others.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:07:11 UTC
How would you not be offensively imposing your morality on others by voting "yes" on something like this? You are saying, in essence, "my religion says that what you are doing is wrong, and thus I will not allow you to do it, regardless of your own personal beliefs on the matter." That sounds like an imposition to me.
I can understand not wanting to vote "no" on this kind of thing if you have a strong moral objection to gay marriage. Fine. I get that. What I don't get is how voting "yes" is anything other than imposing that morality on others. Better to not vote at all, I think.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 14:33:28 UTC
the difference between me strapping you down and forcing you to do something you don't want to do, versus me exercise my government granted right to vote with my conscience. If you tell me I shouldn't put my vote in, make my voice be heard, then buddy, neither can you. I wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. I'd be exercising a legal right. IF the decision in question is NOT something that should be decided by the people, the system will fix it. IF it is, then I have just as much right to vote with my conscience as you do yours on the matter. Neither of our votes affects each other - both of our votes affect what we'd like the rest of our society to be able to do or not. Every law is restrictive to someone. Voting on a law that prohibits someone is not "forcing your morality on someone" - the government decides if it will honor the voting public on the matter or overrule it is unconstitutional. It's not the same as me holding you as a slave to my morality or oppressing in any manner at all.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:45:19 UTC
You can't have your cake and eat it too, here. You don't get to say that you are "voting with your conscience" but you are not "forcing your morality on anyone." If you vote "yes" on something like this then yes, you are attempting to force your morality on other people through the law. That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
You want to vote your conscience, then fine. That's great. But don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 14:52:45 UTC
EVERYONE who votes on whether a law should be enacted or not is, by your definition, 'forcing their morality on everyone'. No, exercising your right to due process and voting on what the government considers a matter the people decide, is most certainly a valid right. And if you don't think the people should decide, or you don't think the government should decide, then you fight the ruling. And that's precisely what the No's are doing at this moment.
That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
Ditto.
don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:56:57 UTC
Yes, I know. And I agree. Everyone voting is trying to force their own morality on someone else. That's what I'm saying.
I'm just pointing out that the only way you can actually say you are NOT doing that is by staying out of it entirely and not voting. You were saying that you'd vote yes, but somehow still believe you weren't forcing your morality on others. I called bullshit on that.
Re: hateful rantcaspian_xNovember 12 2008, 14:58:39 UTC
So then you'd agree that if a different Proposition 42 was "Should the California recognize homosexual marriages?", that 'YES' voters would also be imposing their morality on others?
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 15:03:29 UTC
This may seem surprising, but yes, I would agree with that. Now maybe I agree with that version of morality, and I would vote for it, but I'm not going to kid myself into thinking that I am not expressly trying to force my views on people who do not agree with me through an act of law.
Re: hateful rantcaspian_xNovember 12 2008, 15:05:05 UTC
Wow, fair enough. But then, isn't any law - whether popular vote or legislated via representation - by definition imposing the morality of the supporters on the non-supporters? So doesn't it really become a moot point?
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 15:09:45 UTC
Yes, it is imposing one person's views (or morality, in this case) on another by definition. And maybe it's a moot point because it's an underlying fact of voting for or against something. But I have a problem with people who claim that they are "doing what's right" by taking a stand on an issue, and then hiding under the bed when asked to take responsibility for the consequences of that action.
Re: hateful rantcaspian_xNovember 12 2008, 15:10:46 UTC
What exactly do you mean by "take responsibility"? Who's hiding under the bed from the responsibility of the consequences of their vote? You're losin me.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 15:27:41 UTC
I have a problem with people who claim that they are "doing what's right" by taking a stand on an issue
Again, everyone feels that way when they vote a certain way. Otherwise they'd be lying, and shouldn't vote.
hiding under the bed when asked to take responsibility for the consequences of that action
How does one take responsibility of the results of a vote? What are the consequences Yes'ers face of the vote? Other than the social uproar from the opponents? If you mean the chance that their vote is overturned because it's determined it's not an issue the people should decide, then I'd agree. They shouldn't "fight back" against an overruling any more than No'ers protest the people's vote. That's how the system works. Exercise your right to protest, in order to change something you don't like.
The issue is whether this is something to be determined by the people, or whether it's a basic civil rights issue that needs to be protected by overruling the popular vote. If the former, then either vote is valid and "good". If the latter, then it should be overruled.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 15:08:40 UTC
I choose not to label the entire system and constitution is a moral farce, and that no one should vote because it's all bullshit moral dictating. I choose to believe the system is set up to allow for the most people to be happy, and for the most people to receive inalienable rights, with freedom of religion and for the pursuit of happiness, recognizing that NO system will make everyone happy. I'm not even American.
If you're willing to criticize other people for voting and "forcing their morality on others" (which dropping a ballot in a box is not), and then willingly admit that you do the same, then honestly, you're being a hypocrite. It's ok for you, but not others? Rather if you willingly admit to doing something you consider reprehensable, yet criticize others for doing it, you only pull everyone down, and it's a debate that has no solution. As caspian put it in nice words, a moot point.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 15:13:49 UTC
How am I being a hypocrite? I'm just saying that you should own up to what you are really doing. If I "vote my conscience" on an issue, then that vote has consequences and yes, I need to own up to that, too. Every vote is a statement of your opinion on a subject and some are more cut-and-dried than others. This one is obviously not. But don't say you're "voting your conscience" and then proclaim that you aren't "forcing your morality (or opinion, or belief, or whatever) on others." That, my friend, is bullshit. No matter what the vote, and no matter who the voter.
Re: hateful rantcaspian_xNovember 12 2008, 15:18:01 UTC
What I see here is a miscommunication.
It seemed, perhaps with the quick and lazy parsing that I am doing at this point, that you were saying that in such a vote, theBruce should simply not vote at all so as not to impose his morality on others, while you *would* vote then later acknowledged that you, too, would be imposing your morality on others. Hypocritical.
What I believe you are actually saying is that IF you want to claim you are not imposing your morality on others, abstain from the vote. If you do vote on such an issue as this, either way you are trying to impose your morality on others by the very nature of the vote, a point which I believe theBruce has already agreed with.
So I think at this point we are in agreement, we are just letting way get in the words.
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. ... the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. ... Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [¶] We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Proponents of Proposition 8 argued that homosexuals could still enter into so-called civil unions that afforded many (though not all) of the benefits of civil marriage, and thus that Proposition 8 deprived them of no rights. Opponents of the proposition described the proponents' position as advocating the long-discredited doctrine of "separate but equal," in the hope of pointing out that it was essentially the same reasoning that the Supreme Court rejected in Brown. Even if civil unions were entirely "equal" to marriage, the argument goes, relegating homosexuals to this allegedly "separate but equal" institution instead of allowing them to marry should be unconstitutional.
As a practical matter, there are significant legal differences between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation, so Brown is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court would reach the same conclusion in this different context. Nevertheless, it is clear that the doctrine of "separate but equal" has had no place in the United States since 1954 (at least as it applies to race); as the Court held, separate is inherently unequal.
Here endeth the unnecessary lecture.
(I am curious as to the reason(s) why you would have voted yes on Proposition 8 if you lived in California. If you've explained yourself elsewhere, would you mind posting the link to it?)
Reply
Solely by the fact I don't want to condone, when given the opportunity to support a law with my vote, a morality which I consider wrong - not for my sake, or for pride, but from my perspective, for the good of individuals. Based on my faith, if I know that there are certain things we all do that are sinful, I would never want to say "that's ok, there's nothing wrong with that" - I would be lying, not speaking in good conscience. So I wouldn't want to support, by vote, ultimately having my say in what my government legislates, an act that would be detremental to the spirit of some individual.
Now again, I only say this because it's exercising a right afforded me by that government. Beyond that, I would not attempt to impose my own morals, myself, on other people. But in being given the right to have a say in how my government treats me, and what kind of morality it condones, then I'd certainly take advantage of it, as I would expect anyone else to, whether in agreement or not.
As for the lecture, that was very informative, thanks :)
Perhaps, "separate but equal" isn't a fully accurate term for what I'm meaning in this case, by that definition. At worst, it would be 'separate but equal' in the same way we have men's and women's washrooms. Otherwise, perhaps more appropriate would be 'different, but equal'.
In the case you outlined above, that separation was a matter of comfort, a matter of proximity that some people felt should be maintained, the reasoning still not actually promoting 'equality'. Separation to the degree that "you keep yourself, and we keep to ourselves, that way we don't have to worry about you". Yeah, I'd say that's essentially unconstitutional.
In the case pertaining to the definition of marriage, it's a very different thing. People aren't being filtered and separated in like manner. Rather, it's a sharpening of definition and context of what really defines the union of two people - is it a legal matter, or is it a religious matter? What happens when the two meet? In that context, "separate but equal" is a matter of recognizing the legal rights of any two people for marital relations, while retaining (not separating away) the traditional, and religious definition of marriage in a Holy, God-blessed context.
I think people are far more tense now because there are churches that claim God will bless any two people in holy matrimony, so the opponents feel that there really is nothing now that is unique or sacred about a man/wife holy union - other forms of marriage are not only gaining legal ground, but now they're getting religious support for liberal-minded churches. It's not from hatred of homosexuals - for the most part at least, it's a matter of saving and supporting what is generally considered an untouchable, unnegotiable definition of the union of two people which God has stated is blessed.
So I'd say it's getting tense on two fronts - where activists take anti-gay marriage to extreme political battles, and where gay marriage proponents (couples or liberal churches) are creeping into core religious territory.
I'm only truly concerned about the latter. But for the former, if I exercise my voting rights, then I won't lie, I'll be honest, and vote with my conscience for what I feel is ultimately better for my country/region/etc. Otherwise, to each his own - I won't offensively impose my morality on others.
Reply
I can understand not wanting to vote "no" on this kind of thing if you have a strong moral objection to gay marriage. Fine. I get that. What I don't get is how voting "yes" is anything other than imposing that morality on others. Better to not vote at all, I think.
Reply
I wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. I'd be exercising a legal right. IF the decision in question is NOT something that should be decided by the people, the system will fix it. IF it is, then I have just as much right to vote with my conscience as you do yours on the matter. Neither of our votes affects each other - both of our votes affect what we'd like the rest of our society to be able to do or not. Every law is restrictive to someone. Voting on a law that prohibits someone is not "forcing your morality on someone" - the government decides if it will honor the voting public on the matter or overrule it is unconstitutional. It's not the same as me holding you as a slave to my morality or oppressing in any manner at all.
Reply
You want to vote your conscience, then fine. That's great. But don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Reply
No, exercising your right to due process and voting on what the government considers a matter the people decide, is most certainly a valid right. And if you don't think the people should decide, or you don't think the government should decide, then you fight the ruling. And that's precisely what the No's are doing at this moment.
That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
Ditto.
don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Ditto.
That's the nature of the vote.
Reply
I'm just pointing out that the only way you can actually say you are NOT doing that is by staying out of it entirely and not voting. You were saying that you'd vote yes, but somehow still believe you weren't forcing your morality on others. I called bullshit on that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Again, everyone feels that way when they vote a certain way. Otherwise they'd be lying, and shouldn't vote.
hiding under the bed when asked to take responsibility for the consequences of that action
How does one take responsibility of the results of a vote? What are the consequences Yes'ers face of the vote? Other than the social uproar from the opponents?
If you mean the chance that their vote is overturned because it's determined it's not an issue the people should decide, then I'd agree. They shouldn't "fight back" against an overruling any more than No'ers protest the people's vote. That's how the system works. Exercise your right to protest, in order to change something you don't like.
The issue is whether this is something to be determined by the people, or whether it's a basic civil rights issue that needs to be protected by overruling the popular vote. If the former, then either vote is valid and "good". If the latter, then it should be overruled.
Reply
I choose to believe the system is set up to allow for the most people to be happy, and for the most people to receive inalienable rights, with freedom of religion and for the pursuit of happiness, recognizing that NO system will make everyone happy.
I'm not even American.
If you're willing to criticize other people for voting and "forcing their morality on others" (which dropping a ballot in a box is not), and then willingly admit that you do the same, then honestly, you're being a hypocrite. It's ok for you, but not others? Rather if you willingly admit to doing something you consider reprehensable, yet criticize others for doing it, you only pull everyone down, and it's a debate that has no solution. As caspian put it in nice words, a moot point.
Reply
Reply
It seemed, perhaps with the quick and lazy parsing that I am doing at this point, that you were saying that in such a vote, theBruce should simply not vote at all so as not to impose his morality on others, while you *would* vote then later acknowledged that you, too, would be imposing your morality on others. Hypocritical.
What I believe you are actually saying is that IF you want to claim you are not imposing your morality on others, abstain from the vote. If you do vote on such an issue as this, either way you are trying to impose your morality on others by the very nature of the vote, a point which I believe theBruce has already agreed with.
So I think at this point we are in agreement, we are just letting way get in the words.
Reply
Leave a comment