Prop 8?

Your use of the word "democratic" misses by a million miles.

... you realize that by "arguing" my point you made it for me? You state that "the courts make sure that the laws are constitutional and that individuals are treated fairly under the law" which is exactly what I was saying. By being proactive within the courts, the homosexual community is point out how unfair the laws are and challenging their constitutionality. JUST like the civil rights movements did. Seriously, thank you for making my argument for me. From the sound of what you're saying... you just want to oppress a group just as white males want to pre-suffrage and pre-1960s civil rights.

so long as the majority that agrees with them is formed before the courts write new law I am fine with that. When the constitution was written it was believed that homosexuality was a danger to the collective, thus making laws against it was the fair thing to do, as what is fair for the healthy majority is more important that what is fair for the sexual deviants. If we change our minds about homosexuality being healthy/unhealthy then what is fair in law changes along with it. You put the cart before the horse, just as the courts are accused of doing by granting homosexual rights before the homosexual rights lobby has done their job by creating a majority around their opinion.

Ok, where in the constitution does it say that homosexuality is wrong? The constitution was written to reflect that all men are created equal. There is NO evidence in all of history to say that 1. homosexuality is unhealthy to society, 2. that it is a "danger to the collective" or 3. that any of the founding fathers had ANY reason to go against homosexuality.

Learn your history, don't just make up facts to support your preconceived notions.

Based on your argument as well, the majority viewed slavery as ok. The majority believed that women should not hold regular jobs and stay at home. The majority believed the world was flat. The majority is ignorant to anything that is outside of what they feel is normal. The courts are setup to protect the minority from being taken advantage of by the majority. Hence, check and balance.

Tell us something we didn't know.
K
O

I believe your post just flew over the cuckoo's head.

Homosexuality was still a very much concealed and ignored part of society unless, as in the case of Oscar Wilde, there was a high profile court case up through the writing of the constitution and through the 60's. It's really a very scarce record of prosectutions based on sodomy laws. About the only prosecutions in Hollywood up through the 60's was for leud conduct where almost 100% of the cases were dropped to disturbing the peace and indecent exposure if the "pick-up" included any kind of unzipping. Of course, the vice cops drew the line at trying for a sodomy charge by engaging in a sex act. By the 70's, those leud conduct laws were changed to not include being propositioned in public by another adult. It was the vice squad in Hollywood at the time that would rather go into gay bars and entrap victims then something more dangerous like drugs, prostitution rings, et al, where they could get shot at. The judges were never on their side and would summarily drop the charges or allow lesser pleas with small fines.

Of course, many states still have the laws of the books, not aimed at any private establishments like gay bars, but public restrooms that would attract the Larry Craig toilet queens,

In the Texas case that took the sodomy laws off-the-books, the cops made a an error that came back and bit them in the butt (does that mean that they now have participated?)

Proposition 8 Cases



http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

Debra, How do you think this will play out?

Is there any reason it won't turn out exactly the way it did when it came up before the CSC before? I doubt it. It was a conservative Republican who wrote the final opinion on the last homophobic legislation, and it's not much different than ID loosing in the courts. It's religious beliefs against reason, but heightened by the fact that it is about Constitutional individual rights (unless one wants to consider that a science teacher has the right to teach science, not non-science).

City councils voting to overturn Prop 8 vote even though their voters passed it:

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-city-of-sacramento-urges-court-to-overturn-prop-8

slightly old but good analysis of the court on this matter here
http://www.slate.com/id/2191500

Those people seem oblivious the the Constitution; they think voters have rights over the equal rights of people. They are the most dangerous of all; they think they are above the law of the land; "all men are created equal."

As you have seen expressed by many (well, maybe not many) people on this thread, they do not consider it a deprivation of equal rights, but a denial of special rights. No matter how many times they are given examples of how that logic doesn't compute, they won't yield their position.

This is the thread that will not die with the same caste of characters telling each other how the constitution grant rights that are written in invisible ink.

But we must look at the "progress" gained by many minorities and women when we look at this issue. Without our constitution being defended to the fullest by its citizens, our government will continue to ignore the law of the land. The civil rights movement comes to mind.

The reasoning is still false -- why not amend the state or even the federal constitution to outlaw divorce? That's not a right "written into the constituion." The amateur constitutional arm chair judges on this thread are laughable. Let the courts decide.

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? Why does one group does not allow another group the same "privileges?" If one group can marry, than all groups should be able to marry; and divorce. Of coarse, we are talking about age eligible which treats all groups equally.

As it stand now, gays cannot divorce. The problem the adverse affect of gay marriage on children has been brought up over and over -- isn't divorce the one major problem? Then eliminate it. Also eliminate fatherless families by taking the children from the mother and puting them into foster homes or with family couples who are still together. They wouldn't be able to divorce, so problems solved. Is this a stupid idea? No more stupid then letting religion guide the law and not allow gay marriage because of making it a political whipping post.

religion is the collective wisdom of not only our peers, but also a linking back to the wisdom gain by past generations. Our forefathers did well enough to get the human race to the vast numbers that we currently enjoy, and participated in overall progress in gaining quality of life. Forgive me if I don't participate in your pissing upon the dead.