Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

reply to post by reconpilot


I do none of the things you mention. I think you're just trying to stereotype me to defend and justify your adherence to the modern notion that it is important to stereotype, belittle, and discriminate against white, heterosexual males in order to achieve an "equal opportunity" based on socially engineering society to redistribute social power based on minority status instead of personal qualification.

It's obvious that you and others who share your views are racist, sexist, stereotyping, prejudiced bigots who scapegoat and discriminate against white, heterosexual males. This is ironic considering that you are usually the type of people who claim to be against racism, sexism, and discrimination in all forms.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Then what do you call special protections under law, affirmative action, and social engineering programs designed to give gays, women, and racial minorities jobs, college admissions, and authority that they otherwise wouldn't be qualified for but receive simply because of their sexuality, gender, or race?

That sounds like special rights to me.

Originally posted by Epinephrine
Then what do you call special protections under law, affirmative action, and social engineering programs designed to give gays, women, and racial minorities jobs, college admissions, and authority that they otherwise wouldn't be qualified for but receive simply because of their sexuality, gender, or race?

Not sure what special protections under law you mean... Prop 8 is decidedly not that. Do you mean "hate crime laws", maybe?

As for affirmative actions and social engineering programs, I call those an inappropriate but understandable over-reaction to the historic fact of oppression of women, gays and minorities such that those groups are often denied jobs, college admissions and authority when they are otherwise fully qualified for same.

That sounds like special rights to me.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of AA type laws that require an employer or a college to have X% of gays or minorities or women because there is X% of same in the general population.

That is why I consider those kinds of laws an over-reaction.

However, it is undeniable that oppression and prejudice against these groups exists and is practiced. Just for example, the subject of this thread... there is NO legitimate reason, and in fact it is unconstitutional, to say that two freely consenting adults are not allowed to enter into a marriage, without regard to their respective plumbing.

The AA laws have the right goal, but the mechanics of it get in the way.

Sadly, I don't have the real answer, other than for people to just straighten up and fly right, which is not likely, anytime soon, at least. Maybe we'll get there... the trend is in the right direction.

But to say that enforcing recognition of gay marriage, for example, is according "special rights" to gay people is just flat not true.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Hate crime laws do provide gays and racial minorities with more legal protection under the law than white heterosexuals. Crimes of obvious bias against white people in general and white heterosexual males in particular are not charged as hate crimes as they would be if the victim and victimizer's roles were reversed.

Black mob attacks white victims in Michigan and it's not a hate crime because the victims are white. Whites are an "unprotected class". Apparently some people really are more equal than others.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Epinephrine


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, either. If someone attacks someone, the color/religion/sexual orientation on either side is immaterial.

Bringing this back to the Prop 8 issue, however, I think it is not a huge stretch of imagination to think that at least some hate-crime laws, or AA laws, are a direct result of laws such as Prop 8 is trying to put into place.

As I've said, I'm also a white het male, and have had my share of being on the receiving side of fear/distrust/suspicion/hostility from women, non-whites and gays. I don't care for it one bit. But I understand it.

Also as I've said, I consider AA and hate-crime laws and such to be an over-reaction to a real problem.

And laws such as Prop 8 are a major contributor to these kinds of over-reactions. The power majority, hets in this case, need to stop enacting laws that violate the constitution (14th Amendment) and oppress whole groups of people. Then there would be fewer calls for such laws as hate-crime or AA laws, and far less support for them.

It is, I believe, a direct and predictable result of these kinds of laws (Prop 8) throughout the history of the US that has landed us in the position about which you are concerned: that white het males are the group with the fewest legal protections. That is true. It is also a consequence of the behavior of a large number of white het males throughout history.


[edit on 15-11-2008 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Originally posted by Epinephrine
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

Hate crime laws do provide gays and racial minorities with more legal protection under the law than white heterosexuals. Crimes of obvious bias against white people in general and white heterosexual males in particular are not charged as hate crimes as they would be if the victim and victimizer's roles were reversed.

Black mob attacks white victims in Michigan and it's not a hate crime because the victims are white. Whites are an "unprotected class". Apparently some people really are more equal than others.
www.youtube.com...

lol...

let me get this straight...your talking about charging people with crimes and racism against white people...

I think you need to do a little research on criminal justice in the united states.

Start with CIA and crack...

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


And yet today the minority decides what the majority can or cannot say, can or cannot do, and only need a handful of sympathetic judges to make society conform to their views. If any majority oppression ever occurred during American history it would be more fair to blame the "mob rule" of democracy than any specific ethnic or social group. All groups with their own views and goals will push groups that do not fit their ideal world view to the side or crush them underfoot in the bid for and application of power. White, heterosexual males do not hold a patent on this by any stretch of the imagination.

The only gay rights being sought here is the "right" to repeatedly supersede the popular vote and gain the power to force unpopular laws and policies on a populace that has lost the power to vote that was supposed to protect Americans from tyranny. If Prop 8 is overturned legally, a precedent will have been set that will effectively render the American voter powerless and invalid.

reply to post by Jezus


www.laweekly.com...

This happened near me. Anti-white racism and hate crimes are something that I take very seriously since this incident. Do not suggest to me that anti-white racism is something that is a laughing matter when mobs of minorities can quickly gather and attack white people while chanting racist slurs and comments.

Again, good to see some of that anti-white bias that I saw earlier cropping up. I sure feel real privileged to be a part of an unprotected and frequently ridiculed class.

reply to post by Epinephrine


Gonna have to call "Hogwash" on this one.

1 - No minority, or majority for that matter, decides what this white het male can say or not. Some would like to, but that is their problem...

2 - The right being sought here is the same right of legal marriage (I am NOT talking anything about any church or religious acceptance... only legal under secular law) between two freely consenting adults without regard to plumbing. No more, no less.

Prop 8 is by its very nature unconstitutional. It is the same philosophy as if a state were to say gay people cannot vote... that would be denying them the equal protection under law of all eligible citizens to vote. Prop 8 is trying to do the exact same thing with marriage. If a state has a law that recognizes a legal marriage between two consenting adults, that state is required by the US Constitution, to provide the same protection of the law to ALL marriages between any two consenting adults (barring polygamy... which is applied to all marriages).

The ONLY basis for objection to this is from religion, and it is illegal to have restrictions based on that.

Please go here, or to some other related resource of your choice and study the 1st and 14 Amendments.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

No minority, or majority for that matter, decides what this white het male can say or not. Some would like to, but that is their problem...

Source: www.cnn.com...

Hogwash back atcha.

A white heterosexual (as far as we know) man spoke a racial slur (which I understand contained a simple explanation that he didn't want a black girlfriend of his son to get offended and cause trouble if he or one of his friends happened to say something racial in a private setting) during a private telephone conversation and because of that his show was suspended and the cable company producing it threatened 'appropriate action'.

A black man can say the 'N' word as much as he wants, but let me let it slip, and I am immediately a social criminal. I can be fired from my job, shunned by a community, harassed by blacks, and even threatened without recourse. And that is regardless of my intent.

But 'redneck', 'hick', 'honky', 'cracker', 'white trash', 'gringo', 'bumpkin'... oh, anyone can say those, regardless again of intent, and not one single outcry against them. That's why I chose to allow 'redneck' to be my nickname throughout life, to show the hypocrisy there.

I hope that those protesting the same-sex marriage bans this weekend have more compassion and critical thinking than I am seeing here. I was originally of the mind that this was simply a cry for equality that was going the wrong route to get such equality. Now I am beginning to change my belief to that of this being more about wanting rights not necessarily equal to others, but definitely not less. In other words, greater than the majority.

Equal is equal. You cannot demand equality and then ignore it when it does not affect you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


The constitution says nothing about marriage, thus laws which limit or regulate marriage are not and cannot ever be unconstitutional. And since Prop 8 amended the California state constitution, it is actually rather constitutional.

reply to post by Epinephrine

You forgot to mention that I, as a heterosexual male, can marry any woman who I wish, as long as she agrees (and this is assuming I was not married already). A homosexual male can also marry any woman he wishes as long as she agrees. No difference, therefore no discrimination.

I'm really starting to change my mind on this. On one shot of the protest coverage on CNN, someone was holding up a sign saying "Lesbian sex is fun"... I thought it was about equal rights, not fun sex...

TheRedneck

OK, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but it does bear some discussion IMO.

The Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) Community and its supporters nationwide are mourning and organizing in the wake of last week's announced 52-48% passage of Proposition 8, which eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. But an accurate count of the votes may not yet have occurred, according to early indications.

The integrity of an election takes time to investigate, and it's far too early to draw conclusions. However, consider the following:

Around the world, exit polls are used to determine the need for investigation of elections. In the U.S., the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky) now adjusts results to match vote counts before issuing its final polling numbers. Election Defense Alliance downloaded NEP numbers from the internet on election night, however, before poll results were changed to match the official vote count.

This is the exit poll from early in the evening of election night. There were 2,168 respondents, and they break down as follows (a "yes" vote is a vote against same-sex marriage):

Males:
Yes on Prop 8, 48%
No on Prop 8, 52%

Females:
Yes on Prop 8, 48%
No on Prop 8, 52%

View actual screen capture

This is the exit poll from later in the evening. There were 2,240 respondents -- 72 more respondents than in the earlier poll -- and they break down in a very different way:

Males:
Yes on Prop 8, 53%
No on Prop 8, 47%

Females:
Yes on Prop 8, 52%
No on Prop 8, 48%

View actual screen capture

This discrepancy should be ringing alarm bells. Something doesn't add up.

source

Exit polls are not always the most reliable indicator, but apparently (according to the article) neutral organisations conducting the exit polls are reporting discrepencies.

There's also the money trail and the links to blackwater, the mormons and the knights of columbus to consider when reading this info.
Article about the money trail here

The discrepancies could possibly point to a conspiracy in many ways if you connect the dots.

Emjoy the reading - regardless of your outlook, it's very interesting

As a general response to the last couple of posts.

There is a big difference between personal hate and prejudice coming from individuals.

And hate and prejudice legitimized by public policy.

reply to post by budski

I expected there to be some sort of challenge to the integrity of the vote, and considering the heated debate nationwide, I am all for an independent verification. I welcome this.

But as you state so accurately, exit polls are only indicators of possible problems, not indicators of problems themselves. There is the randomness of the sampling (which theoretically should cancel itself out, but is not guaranteed to do so) as well as the fact that respondents may not be answering the poll honestly.

The numbers in your post reflect what I would expect: younger voters, those with free time during the day, would be more likely to vote 'no' and older workers, who typically have jobs and have to vote after work, would typically be more apt to vote 'yes'. That is what is shown.

As for the investigations of the money trails, I don't know of any legal reason why any organization cannot advertise their support for a particular vote, so although I do not condemn the investigation, I also do not expect any surprises there. The Mormons do oppose gay marriage; that is common knowledge. Now, as I have stated before, if there was evidence of tampering or directly purchasing votes, that would be reason to throw out the vote and redo it.

Thanks for keeping us informed on this, budski!

TheRedneck

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

Thought you might like to see an act that congress passed in 1996 and Bill Clinton signed into law

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The Defense of Marriage Act was authored by Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA.

A right to marriage, overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed.

Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds:

* Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
* The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
* The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause.

Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[8], California, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

DOMA Section 2 is occasionally argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.

Now no where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about marriage. Only in U.S. Code and specifially the Defense of Marriage Act.

Another interesting fact that you might have missed is In California even before they passed prop 22 which was overturned California law already defined marriage as between a man and a woman. all prop 22 and now prop 8 do is say they wouldn't honor same sex marriages performed in another state.

This is something that those in this thread misunderstand about prop 8. Since California law already banned same sex marriage these props only restricted the honoring of marriages preformed in other states.

Like i've said time and again. If gays want to marry then they should propsoe their own amendment banning any and all marriages. and they shouldn't be fighting the states they should be fighting the federal law!

Originally posted by TheRedneck

As for the investigations of the money trails, I don't know of any legal reason why any organization cannot advertise their support for a particular vote, so although I do not condemn the investigation, I also do not expect any surprises there. The Mormons do oppose gay marriage; that is common knowledge. Now, as I have stated before, if there was evidence of tampering or directly purchasing votes, that would be reason to throw out the vote and redo it.

The only thing that worries me in the money trail, is the blackwater aspect, as they have ties to the government.

I may be clutching at straws or maybe I've spent too much time here, but as soon as government links are there, I immediately become suspicious.

That's not to say that there is a definite link, but I am not keen on blackwater, and as we know, they play dirty.

reply to post by budski

You make an excellent point about blackwater. All I can say is they are probably involved to some extent, but let's just hope not to the extent of throwing out the vote.

All we need is another backlash to declare gays as meat animals...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Epinephrine
If any majority oppression ever occurred during American history it would be more fair to blame ... democracy than any specific ... group. All groups ... will push groups that do not fit their ideal world view to the side or crush them underfoot ... for ... power. White, heterosexual males do not hold a patent on this

Wanted to say before that I totally agree with this, although where you say "All groups" I'd probably say "Most", but I definitely agree ... my apologies for the lapse.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Equal is equal. You cannot demand equality and then ignore it when it does not affect you.

I absolutely agree. I don't know who this guy is, much, or really care, but I do not support or agree with the response you describe. I didn't agree when similar happened to Don Imus, either.

I consider it unacceptable that black people can say 'honky', 'cracker' etc, and the N word we cannot even use here in a discussion on the subject, and white people 'cannot'.

We may be using a slightly different meaning of the word "can", here, but we are in agreement on this point.

Originally posted by Epinephrine
The constitution says nothing about marriage, thus laws which limit or regulate marriage are not and cannot ever be unconstitutional. And since Prop 8 amended the California state constitution, it is actually rather constitutional.

I agree that the Constitution does not say anything explicitly about marriage. However, the basis of my argument that Prop 8 and similar measures are unconstitutional is based on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

So if a state chooses to not recognize any legal condition called "marriage" for anybody, I would disagree with that, but I would argue that the Federal Gov't has no business saying anything about it.

However, if a state recognizes "marriage" then it must recognize it the same for everybody. A state cannot specify that "marriage" is the union between two people of different race, or height, or religion; those decisions are up to the participants. Likewise, a state has no business saying that the union is to be of people of different gender. The 14th Amendment prohibits that.

Just like a state cannot say gay people or black people or deaf people can't vote. A state cannot remove rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, and that Constitution guarantees equal rights in law for all citizens.

Now of course there are restrictions on marriage based on youth, but there are a lot of restrictions based on youth... it is possible to be too young to vote, but (so far at least ) a person cannot be too gay to vote.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Yeah, I know about DOMA. It is, in my opinion, also unconstitutional and bad legislation and should never have been even considered, let alone passed.

I opposed it then, I've commented on it since and I oppose it now.