Proposition 8 banning gay marriage was repealed by court decision yesterday. Of course the social networking sites are abuzz with the debate. I’d stated my position long ago. Due to these debates, I did so again. Because one of the greatest things about this country is the people’s right to disagree on issues, I wanted to record these very awesome debates.

On my social networking site:
Me: # of Android system customers beat # of iPhone system customers, AND now Prop 8 is overturned as unconstitutional? BOOYAH!$# What a week!!
My Texan friend Eric: Just a question, and this isn’t about the issue, but more the procedure. Why is the ruling unconstitutional? And what happened to the people’s representation? Marriage is not a right granted by the constitution and gays could already have civil unions. Why did they need the term “marriage?”
My gay friend Jayson: Well ERic i guess your ANTIGay let me give you the answer to your question.Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
Me: Eric, the state controls issuance of marriage licenses. They’re issued by the County Registrar-Recorders’ Offices. By refusing to issue these licenses to people based on sexual orientation or gender alone, the State is infringing on due process and equal protection rights, which are to be given to everyone under the Constitution.
“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” – Judge Walker
Eric: No, bigot I am not. What I am is a proponent of letting the people be represented. This should not be an issue legislated from the bench. Laws that effect the entire nation should be made through referendum, not a judge. That’s the point of our constitution.
Me: Jayson – calm down, he was just asking about the legal principles and understanding the legal arguments, not gay-bashing.
Eric: But, what are they protecting Cindy? The Californian voters decided to add a law to their constitution making marriage for homosexuals illegaly. Now, if the Constitution stated that marriage was a right, I’d understand, however, it is not in the US Constitution. But like I have always believed, it is an issue to be decided by the Supreme Court. Not people on [this site].
Jayson: well Eric started it i am just finishing his question.
Eric: Look, whatever homosexuals wish to do is fine. I am a Constitution die-hard and I like the legal wranglings. I’d be fighting over the oil-moratoriums as well. I don’t like government in everyone’s life (check out my support of Libertarians). That’s all. I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body – never have. But I do love my Constitution and the fact that America should be a democracy.
Eric: I didn’t start anything. I asked a simple question concerning the legality and the appropriateness of legislating from the bench. The judicial branch is gaining unprecendented power, which is not healthy for the nation.
Me: The Constitution also does not state it is a Consitutional right for people in this country to drive. Imagine if state-operated DMV decided they no longer will grant driver’s licenses to a specific race, gender, sexual orientation. The fight will have to start in the lower courts and work its way up.
Eric: True enough, Cindy. And I see your point. However, no one voted to ban people from getting drivers licenses. When does the will of the people matter in issues?
Me: This would be the same if people started citing the stereotype of “Asians can’t drive” and proposed a law to ban DMV from issuing licenses to Asians, and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon, saying, “HEY, I think that’s true, too!” (I also just realized that our car accident trial right now has an Asian woman as the defendant.) And they all voted and pushed this law thru. The Asian community comes together and fights and fights to get it repealed as unfair. There’s the fight of wills.
Here’s a brief synopsis: http://www.examiner.com/x-21239-Oakland-Skepticism-Examiner~y2010m8d4-Prop-8-decision-released
Jayson: Well Sorry ERic,I thought you were gay-bashing.
Me: I’m sure it’s fine, jayson, this issue is close to your heart so it’s understandable you’re quick to defend it. But I’ve known Eric since we were all in HS and he and I had mutual gay friends we hung out with even then.
My friend Karen: People can propose laws (as they did Prop 8), and procedurally these propositions will come up on a ballot for the people to decide if it’s what they want. But all propositions are subject to review by a court before it can become law, beca…use not all people understand the law and the Constitution when they propose one. Prop 8, as written, had to come under judicial scrutiny so that judges we have elected, that we have determined understand the law best among us, can determine if it conforms with all of the basic rights and liberties that we agreed long ago all of our laws and future amendments should adhere to. Unfortunately, a passel of yokels composed Prop 8 and judges had to review if it was consistent with what we set forth as the people’s most basic rights. But I do agree with Cindy that the Android victory over iPhone is nearly as monumental.
Me: Thank you, Karen!
Karen: Eric definitely wasn’t gay-bashing, but I think he needs to brush up a little on the checks and balances system of Federal government. This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_united_states. Also, I don’t know about “will of the people,” but it’s common knowledge that there is no true democracy in practice; that’s merely an ideal. I recommend playing Sid Mieir’s Civilization II or Civilization III to illustrate the different variables of this form of government.
“the” Jordan: it all boils down to penis and vagina. Not only were they violating the 14th amendment by denying one to marry ANYONE they choose (because it never stated that marriage was between a man and a woman) …they were violating their own added …clause to this amendment (to discriminate on the basis of gender).. so if a man wants to marry a man, he can remove his penis, have plastic surgery to replace said penis with a vagina.. and voila.. he’s anatomically (vaginal-wise) a woman, so now they can marry? Will that be suitable to those that oppose SSM / Prop 8? Define “man”… define “woman” … will they go to the Supreme Court now and demand everyone get genetic testing to prove their gender before marriage? What about those that are born with both male / female genitalia? I’m trying to understand the reasoning for those that want things like this banned? Is it religious based? Are they bored? As this heads to the Supreme Court (and it will) it’s exciting to know the swing vote belongs to Anthony Kennedy. Although conservative in most issues, he’s VERY liberal with this one… ha, good luck haters.
Karen’s best friend Jose: “Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.” Oh damn. I really want those Asian drivers–who do not drive like me–to get off the road!
Eric: Omg, is that “the” Karen? 😀 Long time, no talk. I do have to agree that it isn’t a true democracy. We all know this will end in the Supreme Court and even then, the battle might not end. And I do understand the checks and balances system – and I do appreciate the reference. I do worry, though, that we, as a country, sometimes don’t access to the checks and balances we should. I just worry about the overreaching effect of government influences in any one’s life.
Eric’s wife Michelle: Normally this is where I would interject some stupid comment not having to do with the situation to “lighten the mood” but….. I shall spare you, as its nearly 3am and my wit is still asleep it seems. 😛
~ * ~
On my Texan friend Michelle [the above Eric’s wife]’s site:
Michelle: “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.” Then people wonder why I do not register to vote for anything. All that Your Vote Counts talk is crap and this is 100% proof of it. Fail, America….fail on you.
Her friend Josh: I really dont like getting involved in political debates. But I’ll just say this, 7 million people voted to deny a group of people basic rights. It truly sickens me that any American could vote to deny someone, what boils down to, the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line is prop 8 shouldn’t have even been allowed to have a vote taken on it to begin with.
And since I’ve probably already shot myself in the foot. Peoples values mean dick when it’s infringing on a groups rights. Maybe we should repeal women’s rights and say blacks cant vote again too because peoples values include ludicrous things like that still.
Michelle: You fail to see the point. Why bother when one person in power can just pen away the majority opinion, even if it is an opinion you disagree with. Where is the justice in that? Everyone is so drunk on the “topic” that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
Scenario: You vote on class president in school. All kids have a “civil right” to run and be considered, but you vote for X (your opinion). Teacher counts the votes, determines X has the most, but then decides that Y is the better choice, and makes Y the class president. Fair? X clearly had more votes. X’s voters did nothing but do what was asked of them- express their choice in who they want as president. The teacher became the ultimate decision maker, and now everyone loses out on the system. No re-vote, just one person saying “Sorry you little bastards, you are wrong and I know what is best”.
In that scenario, why both having the kids vote? Why not appoint Y and be done with it? It’s so fail, and so scary, and so sad. Hence why, I do not vote. Cus it doesn’t matter.
PS, I care not if gays marry. I am not the one judging at the end of it all. I have other issues with the gay agenda, much like I have with the Obama agenda, oil agenda, and war agenda. I also have issues with sleep, pregnancy, and work. I am equal opportunity like that. *nod*
Josh: So basically we should allow that to stand because people voted on it, while an injustice continues on a group of people? it was ruled unconstitutional, which seems like a bigger injustice to the people it was impacting. ANY ruling that is deemed unconstitutional should be treated the same way.
also what, exactly is the gay agenda? Cause it seems to me like they just want the same rights us good ol’ american penis to vagina folks enjoy.
Michelle: Sigh… I suppose without knowing your definition of “civil right”, I can’t competently argue with you. 😛 But since I am deliriously awake….
People always think others have it better than them and want some of the pie themselves. In the end, they often shoot themselves in the foot unknowingly.
Mr. T can exercise his right to vote, but then a judge will rule it was not a good, constitutional vote, like in this case. Does Mr T then call out racism? He voted, and he is black, and his vote he had a “civil right” to make didn’t count. Is that a violation of his civil right to vote as a black man and be heard as part of the majority? What does he do then?
I suppose call Jesse Jackson…lol.
Josh: Rights aren’t infringed by repealing a law really. We have a “right to vote” not “a right to vote and never have any law we’ve ever voted on change or be removed altogether” And in this particular case, a groups inalienable (and civil) righ…ts were being infringed upon and really our right to vote shouldn’t come before that. I would be willing to bet this one is a “big deal” because of the issue at hand and the fact that the right has been exceptionally loud about shit like “sin” and the “sanctity of marriage” But I’ll just leave it at that I could rant about how much BS all of that is too.
Michelle: We can agree to disagree on this topic. I am cool with that. Cus I am neither a politics major, scholar of the constitution, judge or attorney (thank god, sorry attorney friends *grin*), nor am I working on all faculties with the lack of sleep and pregnancy brain cell loss currently going on.
I merely have an opinion which I have a RIGHT (per your definition of civil rights, I suppose), like the all those posting their “yay for gay” flags on FB, to express MY feelings about. To the point- I feel the system is flawed, and wonder why people bother to vote for anything at all. This whole topic has been voted on before, appealed, voted, appealed, made a sammich, appealed, etc etc.
Josh: of course we can agree to disagree and of course you can voice any opinion you wish. I suppose it just struck a nerve.
Michelle: PS, the religious issues I will not debate. I have my faith and beliefs, you have yours.
What kinda frustrates me though is how “attackish” all you PRO gay marriage are on people who have a different opinion. It’s like, I can’t express my thoughts on the issue without getting into a huge ass debate that ultimately ends with a religious attack and everyone telling me I am wrong (then again, used to that cus I had to grow up with my dad, LOL!), but everyone else can post a rainbow flag pic on [this site] without incident.
WTF?
Now who’s rights are being violated? 😛
Josh: I don’t think your beliefs or your faith is wrong. I think people attempting to impose said faith or beliefs on others as law IS wrong, at least when it conflicts with the things we talked about before. I mean obviously beliefs factor into everything, religious or not. The “homosexuality is a sin” line is just the most acute example I can think of where people try to use their beliefs to influence other peoples live in a very real and tangible way.
Michelle: I never said anything about it being a sin. I never brought in religion. And I feel there are many out there like me that get lost in the debate because it seems like all arguments start out intelligent then sadly go down that road and cripple real debates on the topic.
I said I don’t vote cus my vote doesn’t count so get off my back when I tell you I am not registered to vote and you start lecturing me about how every vote counts. THAT is bullshit and everyone knows it. Its a thing people say to keep hope alive….
Shit, I have been scolded enough by people about my brash, tactless, brutal honesty in the past to know better than to post my real opinion on ANYTHING. The world could not handle it so I keep those posts in my “special blog”, untouched by you mere mortal men (and women, and gays, and blacks, and all other groups that want to be special snowflakes…).
Josh: I know you didn’t, but that’s the kind of reasoning people give for prop 8 when it was originally being pushed. I suppose I just initially assumed your opposition was in line with that (as opposed to what you stated later) which is my fault. Still the point still stands. I wasn’t really aiming to offend though, I may have gotten a little over zealous in my defense of what happened today.
Michelle’s friend Emily: i’ve become disillusioned with voting myself lately – electoral votes/obama-care push through against wishes of the majority. Gubmint doesn’t care what the people want so let’s just stop pretending that we really have a say. Still love this country, just saying. Also good for you, for saying what you really think re: gay marriage. It’s so hot button I’m afraid to say anything about it ’cause people freak out.
Michelle: I am easy going and will agree to disagree but I definately am not ashamed to love America, hate illegal immigration, disagree with gay marriage, disaprove of how our government is being run, and state proudly that I am Christian and love God. I have that right just as much as those pushing for gay marriage and freedom of religion do. 🙂
Me: “Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable… rights of the minority.” [thanks, Jose]
I like broccoli (now). I know former Prez. Bush hates it. But I’m glad he didn’t propose a law to ban broccoli from the country just because he doesn’t deem it worthy of human consumption. He just simply doesn’t eat the stuff himself but if we eat it, it’s our personal choice.
Michelle: Therein lies the rub. My personal opinion is this:
Marriage is not a basic human right.
Me: I’m okay with that opinion. But assuming the truth of that opinion, isn’t the other side of the coin also true? It’s not a basic human right to GIVE, hence it’s not a right to be TAKEN AWAY from anyone, either.
Michelle’s husband Eric: So, by that logic, there should be no marriage for anyone. Marriage has existed long before our government did.
Michelle: You can’t take something away that is not there in the first place. I can’t take a toy from the cat she never had in the first place. I can’t take a right away that I never had in the first place.
Me: Eric – I’m okay with the government completely withdrawing from the institution of marriage. But it can’t have a hand in it and then say they’re only gonna give that ability to people who fit a certain profile.
Michelle – I agree, except that …someone DID start giving away the toy, but only to this and that breed of cat, and not to all cats. And then people tried to make it law that it will forever be FORBIDDEN that exempted cats could ever be given that toy. Either give it to all, or just don’t give any and let the cats decide whether it wants the toy on its own, don’t intervene! Not very long ago, it would have been illegal for me to marry my current husband. 40 years ago or so. We would have been denied a marriage license due to race.
Me: I’m not disputing your opinion that it shouldn’t be a “right.” That’s not my opinion, but I don’t have a problem with it being your opinion at all. But the fact is, it IS a government-regulated process and Prop 8 asks for it to be regulated unfairly. It’s as simple as that to me. On a personal level, I don’t care if gay OR straight people make the choice to get married or stay single or be in a pseudo-married domestic partnership union. But it should be up to that couple, and not up to others who have NOTHING to gain OR lose from that couple’s union.
[after I wrote this, college roommie Diana found the case I was referring to and sent me the cite along with a quote, which I posted as an additional comment]
Me: BTW, this is the law that made marriage a fundamental American right:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
“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.”
Michelle: This topic bores me and I am done with it. Besides, we are all going to die in 2012 anyway. So yeah, can you tell I am depressed and want to die? Cus it would be awesome.
Me: I wanted to tell you you’re not gonna die in 2012, but that’s probably not what you want to hear right now. 😉
Michelle’s friend Kane: I’m very disappointed to read how you feel about this issue. While I always believe you have a right to make your statements known, I have the right to turn away from those who stand in opposition to my way of life. I wish you all the best in the future but I cannot stand proudly and acknowledge our friendship anymore.
[wow.]
~ * ~
In talking online with Diana online about this, she mentioned that one of our college friends had posted on his site about his stance:
Diana: [he] did not like the court ruling and poste dsomething on [his site]. i knew he was anti-gay but i was a little disappointed
Me: […]I can see him as a stereotypical old-fashioned japanese patriarch type
Diana: yeah
so someone commented “Apparently, a majority can not disenfranchise the minority just because they vote on it. I wish judges would have had the guts to do the right thing back in the 40s when parts of American society and the executive branch did the same thing to “real” Americans of Japanese descent.”
Me: nice.
Diana: totoally
it’s to the point w/o spelling it out
i thought it was very nice
me: very nicely done. […]is that commenter japanese?
Diana: nope
a hugo hernandez
[we discuss further, sometimes about other things, and then Diana finds the Loving v. Virginia cite for me.]
Diana: so because it’s a fundmental right, a law deprivingsomeone of that is subject to strict scrutiny
also because it discrimnates against a suspect class (based on sexual orientation) it is also subj to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause