I'll just leave this here...
I thought you all would be interested in the conversation I've been having with an old high school friend on the topic of Prop 8. We disagree on some basic principals, but it's really nice to be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone who can get beyond emotion and into fact.
Marin Page "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize
plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest
that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples
across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask
California to recognize their relationships for what they are:
marriages." - Judge Walker
Lionel Green "...plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships..." California responded. 7 million+ said no. 1 federal jurist said, "you have to."
Regardless of how one regards same-sex marriage, if one cares about the democratic process as the ideal means for social change, then this is a travesty.
Luckily, it will be appealed and go to the Supreme Court who will hopefully stand behind the principle of a representative government and federalism.
(Personally, if you care, as a libertarian I wish gov't didn't issue marriage licenses at all. I think the idea of having to ask the gov't permission to marry is absurd.)
April Rowett Rauer The great thing about America is we have these checks and balances that prevent the prejudices of the majority to disenfranchise a minority.
Lionel Green But when a minority runs roughshod on the majority (e.g. a King over his subjects) it's tyranny.
Of the two evils, a majority disenfranchising a minority is more palatable. Because the minority has time on its side and can eventually persu...ade the majority to change it's position.
The most common means a majority has to break the oppression of a tyrannical minority is revolution. An uprising. Obviously because the majority has its numbers.
The framers knew this and that is why majority rule is paramount to minority rule.
Marin Page
I'm going to have to disagree with you here Lionel. Taken to it's logical conclusion, your argument stands against every major social reform in our history. If the Majority were allowed to vote away the rights of the minority, then blacks w...ould still be slaves, let alone have the right to vote, women wouldn't have the vote, Brown v the board of education and Loving vs Virgina would be invalid.
The fact of the matter is, our Constitution is in place to prevent the Majority from being able to discriminate against the minority. We are a Constitutional Democracy, not a direct Democracy. If you would prefer that the Majority has the right to, for instance, decide that the elderly should not be allowed to get married, or that gay people should have their natural born children taken away because they're not fit to be parents, then that's your right to believe that. I, however, am glad to live in a country where the people cannot decide to take away a minority group's rights just cu they find that group "icky".
Marin Page Also, as a note, no one has to ask the government's permission to marry. Anyone is free to marry in this country. The government does provide benefits and privileges to married couples in order to encourage a stable family unit. What the ga...ys are asking for is equal protection under the law, and that is what this case is about.
The people cannot enact a law that directly violates the constitution. And Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment - Equal Protection under the Law. The fact that the majority believes that gays aren't worthy of that protection does not make it true.
Lionel Green It is not surprising that you would disagree with me. But to paraphrase GK Chesterton, "before we begin arguing we must agree on what not to argue about." Which is to say we need to agree on some basic premises. And on that we don't agree..., so before we even discuss same sex marriage, we'd have to agree on basic premises.
The idea that the Constitution was established to protect the minority from the majority is a HUGE misconception. James Madison, its primary author, between the two evils of a majority oppressing a minority or a minority oppressing a majority, saw the latter to be more unjust. And it is not hard to see why considering we created a republic out of a monarchy. He wrote:
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority. (If) The republican form of government is, as all of us agree, to be preferred..."Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20030622173926/http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quotepeople.htm
Which essentially means, using the democratic process (by use of representatives) to enact social change is preferable. One of the progressive social changes you mentioned, women's suffrage, came about using the democratic process (amendment ratification). And as a result, there was little to no social repercussions.
Slavery was also abolished by the democratic process and resulted in little if any social repercussions...it just wasn't in this country. In the UK, Parliament abolished slavery (see the movie Amazing Grace), and racial relations are better there than here because of how WE went about to abolish slavery: the Civil War (use of force). And the Civil War came about because of tyrannical court decisions, particularly Dred Scott case. There the decision was against the progressives (the abolitionists), but the principle is the same. The abolitionists had to honor a slaveowner's property rights against their will. They no longer had control of the laws in their own state.
Same-sex marriage proponents could have waited 10 years at the most and have gotten Californians to agree to recognize same-sex marriage. But by seeking to use force, remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, there are going to be reperucussions. You'll see evangelicals and other religious types (including ethnic minorities) either become more reactionary and politically active.
Sorry for the long response but it is a complex topic, and not just: "let teh ghey's merry!"
Marin Page It's a solid argument, but to further narrow it down, we can distill this case into a single question. "Is Prop 8 unconstitutional?" The people cannot make laws that violate the constitution. Judge Walker determined that Prop 8 does in fact... violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. If the people want to make laws that defy our foundation document, then they need to disempower that document. I think that's unlikely to happen.
As to the idea of this coming down to The minority vs the majority, yes, it is unjust for a minority to oppress a majority. However, this isn't the case here. Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. It was established in this case that giving marriage rights to gays deprives no one of any right other than the right to deny rights to gays. Prop 8 is illegal legislation designed only to oppress, and to say that any group, majority or not, has the write to enact laws designed only to deprive a minority group of their rights is a direct violation of equal protection. That is not tyranny of the minority, because the majority loses nothing.
As to the social upheaval caused by government imposed civil rights, yes, gradual change is often less painful on the surface. But would the south have voted the foundation of their economic system away for decades beyond when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation? Maybe race relations would have been better now, if the South had been allowed to emancipate at their own pace, but how many people would be born into slavery in the meantime? How many raped slaves, murdered slaves, families torn apart, slaughters from uprisings would have occurred in that time? The civil war was a horror, but it brought an end to a worse horror.
Likewise in California, gays could have waited 10 years for more of the bigots to die off and social perception to change. But in the mean time, how many people will suffer? Of course the suffering is not on the scale of black slavery, but how can we say to someone whose dignity is being trampled and whose financial security is in jeopardy and whose fundamental relationship is meaningless in the eyes of the law that they should just wait - because it makes some people uncomfortable. The evangelicals and fundy wingnuts are riled up - no question. But if it wasn't this, it'd be something else, and they're steadily losing ground. Every state where discrimination is struck down by the courts and marriage equality is enacted has seen a larger increase in gay marriage support in the last few years http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinions-on-gay-rights-vary-lot-by.html By having their fears enacted, opponents may be realizing that it's really not that big a deal to begin with.
There are many things that should be up to the people, but the Constitutuion, bless it, says that human rights are not. No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. California enacted an illegal law, Judge Walker struck it down. That's what the Judicial branch is for.
I appreciate the spirited discourse. Though we disagree on a lot of principals, its refreshing to discuss this with someone capable of fielding a genuine argument.
Marin Page "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize
plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest
that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples
across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask
California to recognize their relationships for what they are:
marriages." - Judge Walker
Lionel Green "...plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships..." California responded. 7 million+ said no. 1 federal jurist said, "you have to."
Regardless of how one regards same-sex marriage, if one cares about the democratic process as the ideal means for social change, then this is a travesty.
Luckily, it will be appealed and go to the Supreme Court who will hopefully stand behind the principle of a representative government and federalism.
(Personally, if you care, as a libertarian I wish gov't didn't issue marriage licenses at all. I think the idea of having to ask the gov't permission to marry is absurd.)
April Rowett Rauer The great thing about America is we have these checks and balances that prevent the prejudices of the majority to disenfranchise a minority.
Lionel Green But when a minority runs roughshod on the majority (e.g. a King over his subjects) it's tyranny.
Of the two evils, a majority disenfranchising a minority is more palatable. Because the minority has time on its side and can eventually persu...ade the majority to change it's position.
The most common means a majority has to break the oppression of a tyrannical minority is revolution. An uprising. Obviously because the majority has its numbers.
The framers knew this and that is why majority rule is paramount to minority rule.
Marin Page
I'm going to have to disagree with you here Lionel. Taken to it's logical conclusion, your argument stands against every major social reform in our history. If the Majority were allowed to vote away the rights of the minority, then blacks w...ould still be slaves, let alone have the right to vote, women wouldn't have the vote, Brown v the board of education and Loving vs Virgina would be invalid.
The fact of the matter is, our Constitution is in place to prevent the Majority from being able to discriminate against the minority. We are a Constitutional Democracy, not a direct Democracy. If you would prefer that the Majority has the right to, for instance, decide that the elderly should not be allowed to get married, or that gay people should have their natural born children taken away because they're not fit to be parents, then that's your right to believe that. I, however, am glad to live in a country where the people cannot decide to take away a minority group's rights just cu they find that group "icky".
Marin Page Also, as a note, no one has to ask the government's permission to marry. Anyone is free to marry in this country. The government does provide benefits and privileges to married couples in order to encourage a stable family unit. What the ga...ys are asking for is equal protection under the law, and that is what this case is about.
The people cannot enact a law that directly violates the constitution. And Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment - Equal Protection under the Law. The fact that the majority believes that gays aren't worthy of that protection does not make it true.
Lionel Green It is not surprising that you would disagree with me. But to paraphrase GK Chesterton, "before we begin arguing we must agree on what not to argue about." Which is to say we need to agree on some basic premises. And on that we don't agree..., so before we even discuss same sex marriage, we'd have to agree on basic premises.
The idea that the Constitution was established to protect the minority from the majority is a HUGE misconception. James Madison, its primary author, between the two evils of a majority oppressing a minority or a minority oppressing a majority, saw the latter to be more unjust. And it is not hard to see why considering we created a republic out of a monarchy. He wrote:
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority. (If) The republican form of government is, as all of us agree, to be preferred..."Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20030622173926/http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quotepeople.htm
Which essentially means, using the democratic process (by use of representatives) to enact social change is preferable. One of the progressive social changes you mentioned, women's suffrage, came about using the democratic process (amendment ratification). And as a result, there was little to no social repercussions.
Slavery was also abolished by the democratic process and resulted in little if any social repercussions...it just wasn't in this country. In the UK, Parliament abolished slavery (see the movie Amazing Grace), and racial relations are better there than here because of how WE went about to abolish slavery: the Civil War (use of force). And the Civil War came about because of tyrannical court decisions, particularly Dred Scott case. There the decision was against the progressives (the abolitionists), but the principle is the same. The abolitionists had to honor a slaveowner's property rights against their will. They no longer had control of the laws in their own state.
Same-sex marriage proponents could have waited 10 years at the most and have gotten Californians to agree to recognize same-sex marriage. But by seeking to use force, remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, there are going to be reperucussions. You'll see evangelicals and other religious types (including ethnic minorities) either become more reactionary and politically active.
Sorry for the long response but it is a complex topic, and not just: "let teh ghey's merry!"
Marin Page It's a solid argument, but to further narrow it down, we can distill this case into a single question. "Is Prop 8 unconstitutional?" The people cannot make laws that violate the constitution. Judge Walker determined that Prop 8 does in fact... violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. If the people want to make laws that defy our foundation document, then they need to disempower that document. I think that's unlikely to happen.
As to the idea of this coming down to The minority vs the majority, yes, it is unjust for a minority to oppress a majority. However, this isn't the case here. Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. It was established in this case that giving marriage rights to gays deprives no one of any right other than the right to deny rights to gays. Prop 8 is illegal legislation designed only to oppress, and to say that any group, majority or not, has the write to enact laws designed only to deprive a minority group of their rights is a direct violation of equal protection. That is not tyranny of the minority, because the majority loses nothing.
As to the social upheaval caused by government imposed civil rights, yes, gradual change is often less painful on the surface. But would the south have voted the foundation of their economic system away for decades beyond when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation? Maybe race relations would have been better now, if the South had been allowed to emancipate at their own pace, but how many people would be born into slavery in the meantime? How many raped slaves, murdered slaves, families torn apart, slaughters from uprisings would have occurred in that time? The civil war was a horror, but it brought an end to a worse horror.
Likewise in California, gays could have waited 10 years for more of the bigots to die off and social perception to change. But in the mean time, how many people will suffer? Of course the suffering is not on the scale of black slavery, but how can we say to someone whose dignity is being trampled and whose financial security is in jeopardy and whose fundamental relationship is meaningless in the eyes of the law that they should just wait - because it makes some people uncomfortable. The evangelicals and fundy wingnuts are riled up - no question. But if it wasn't this, it'd be something else, and they're steadily losing ground. Every state where discrimination is struck down by the courts and marriage equality is enacted has seen a larger increase in gay marriage support in the last few years http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinions-on-gay-rights-vary-lot-by.html By having their fears enacted, opponents may be realizing that it's really not that big a deal to begin with.
There are many things that should be up to the people, but the Constitutuion, bless it, says that human rights are not. No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. California enacted an illegal law, Judge Walker struck it down. That's what the Judicial branch is for.
I appreciate the spirited discourse. Though we disagree on a lot of principals, its refreshing to discuss this with someone capable of fielding a genuine argument.