Pyrrhus for the Purists

[midnightranter]

For many liberals, the victory of Barack Obama was tainted by the victory of Proposition 8 in California. As many saw and know, Proposition 8 banned gay marriage after the California Supreme Court in May ruled all bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. The California court ruled that any bans on marriage between two adults are

Comments

[doitalone]

I already know how to solve this problem so until someone listens to me, I refuse to comment except to say the whole thing is silly and is just people being pissed at each other for fun.

[angelari]

And how would you solve it?

[doitalone]

Loving v. Virginia.

Have a gay couple marry in one state that allows it (Mass or Vermont for example) and then move to Virginia.

The Supreme Court has already stated that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Take out race, replace it with sexual orintation, and bam, the issue of gay marriage is decided.

No one is doing this though, which is why I'm tired of the whole argument.

[angelari]

I actually HAVE seen this argument made numerous times. The difficulty seems to be convincing nutjob Christians people that it IS a civil rights issue, not a moral issue. At it's simplest, refusing gay marriage is a violation of due process and denies equal protection under the law.

Hey midnightranter - what do you think about the possible success of an argument that denying gay marriage is discrimination on the basis of sex? (Namely, in order to be a "groom," one must be over eighteen, unmarried, and male.)

[midnightranter]

One not always need be over 18 in many states. It may work, but it's the bathroom problem. To use a public men's restroom, you have to be a man (or woman to use a woman's restroom). Gender is one of the few things were separate but equal gets quasi-status. That is, a government building doesn't provide one restroom for all, but has separate facilities for each sex. And, while there is welfare, people who make more than a certain amount cannot get, even though income IS a protected class for many definitions under ADA.
Now, arguing that gay people cannot access a government service because of sexuality, whether you believe it is a choice (like religion is) or it is nature (like skin color) would be denial of equal protection under the law.

[angelari]

There is, however, a valid reason for denying men access to the women's room - an issue that is based in public safety. No one is physically threatened by a woman's presence in the role of groom.

[midnightranter]

Also true, but my only point being, there are faster arguments to try.

[doitalone]

Also, you're never going to convince the nutjob Christians (and they are nutjobs) that it's not a moral issue. Because IT IS TO THEM. Simple as that. You have to convince GOVERNMENT as a whole that it's not a MORAL ISSUE to THEM.

[midnightranter]

and THAT'S a really good point

[midnightranter]

Mass won't marry gay couples if the state they are from disallows, citing an old 1912 blue law. Connecticut has full gay marriage and will do it. Vermont only has civil unions

[doitalone]

Fine, move to Connecticut.

[doitalone]

No, I mean, the gay people should move to Connecticut and then move to Virginia and make it a national matter.

[midnightranter]

what do you think the next step after the CA supreme court ruling is? The court, 6 to 5 and pick 'em, overturn the voter initiative, and the supporters of prop 8 will go to the Supreme Court saying California courts violated the CA constitution, so please stop them. And throw in a bit 9th and 10th amendment arguments as well.

[angelari]

Yes, because I don't have any ties (home, family, job) to my current location, and nothing better to do than move around the country fighting for a right that should be mine anyway. Very practical.

[doitalone]

But the fact is - it isn't. How bad do you want it? People have to fight every day for basic rights that should be theres. Shit, look at everything the blacks had to do.

Sorry you're working against hundreds of years of humans saying that homosexuality is wrong, I really am. But the fact remains you are. So are you going to sit there and hope eventually people forget hundreds of years of conditioning, or are you going to go get what you want the quickest route possible?

And by "you" I'm generalizing. :(