Some have claimed that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution prevents discrimination on things other than skin color.

If the 14th blocked discrimination based upon sex, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Considering how hard it is to get an Amendment passed, the fact that supporters of Women’s Suffrage went that route should tell you everything you need to know about that claim.

Your point?

You can’t have the Constitution nor any of the political principles it rests upon, without the Declaration of Independence. That’s what sets up the foundational principles the Constitution builds on.

Furthermore, Rob, if you want to play that game, if you want to claim that marriage is an inalienable right that cannot be abridged by law or Constitution, then you need to publicly state that bans against marriage for any reason are against the inalienable right of everyone — which means that pedophiles, incest practitioners, bestialists, and polygamists must be allowed to marry and have full recognition.

The fundamental right is to be treated equitably under the law unless there is a justifiable reason for the government not to – and making something legal for a man and a woman that is illegal for two men or two women is not treating them equitably. Nor can you provide any kind of justification for why government should treat them differently save your own moral indignation and the idea that our rights derive from the consent of the majority.

In the case of bestiality and pedophilia, the fundamentals of what make them a crime will not change. They’re rape because by definition one of the parties is unable to consent. That’s not going to change. Moreover, the situation of somebody trying to marry a child or an animal is not the same as two adults seeking to marry – the former cannot do what the latter does, consent to enter the union.

Incest is more problematic. 25 states already consider cousin marriages legal (they’re listed here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm). Of the 25 that allow incestual relationships, six allow it in situations where the potential for genetic damage to offspring is minimal (Maine), where one participant is unable to reproduce (Arizona, Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin), or the couple is old (Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah and Wisconsin). So that particular genie is already out of the lamp, and did so long before gay marriage came up.

Of the slippery slope you quote, only polygamous unions are likely to try to use equal protection under the law to remove prohibitions against them. That is certainly the group people have the least arguments against, again centering around the general “it’s a bad idea” and “ew, ick.” Not my personal cup of tea, but if you want to shack up with two ladies, or three or four and can convince them to do so, more power to you. I pretty much doubt that, given the current climate about

Marriage is a privilege, not a right; to use AE’s example, it is akin to the government encouraging you to drive a Prius rather than a Hummer. Furthermore, if you are too tall, or have too many kids to haul, or whatnot that prevents you from getting a Prius, the government doesn’t give you the credit on your Hummer; you simply don’t get a credit. Anything else would encourage people to drive Hummers, and that’s not the point of these credits.

Except that we’re not talking about whether I buy a Hummer or a Prius. That’s a false analogy. We’re talking about whether you can buy a Prius – and thus get your tax breaks – because 51% of the people are fine with you driving a Prius, but I am not allowed to buy the Prius, because 51% of the people think my Prius-driving is immoral.

Driving is a privilige too – shall we ban gay people from driving, because we think them immoral? Or shall we ban black people, just cause we don’t like the idea of black people driving? How about those women, can’t have them behind the wheel, too emotional? Nope, not at all. We do not limit driving – a privilege – unless one is physically incapable of doing so safely. And even then, you’re allowed to show up and take the test. We don’t limit it based upon color, creed, or gender.

The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women’s group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html

“The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps — instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of “Obama Bucks” — a phony $10 bill featuring Obama’s face on a donkey’s body, labeled “United States Food Stamps.”

According to its website, the Folsom Street Fair attracts 400,000 participants annually. You can’t really say its just a tiny minority of extremists, especially since so few gays are willing to condemn it.

In my hometown, the county fair draws a similar number of participants. It may not be a flattering reflection of the culture I come from, but it is accurate. And, BTW, it doesn’t feature public sex or BDSM.

I think NDT decimated the rest of Rob’s argument with his usual effectiveness, so I have nothing else to add.

That is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Furthermore, Rob, if you want to play that game, if you want to claim that marriage is an inalienable right that cannot be abridged by law or Constitution, then you need to publicly state that bans against marriage for any reason are against the inalienable right of everyone — which means that pedophiles, incest practitioners, bestialists, and polygamists must be allowed to marry and have full recognition.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right; to use AE’s example, it is akin to the government encouraging you to drive a Prius rather than a Hummer. Furthermore, if you are too tall, or have too many kids to haul, or whatnot that prevents you from getting a Prius, the government doesn’t give you the credit on your Hummer; you simply don’t get a credit. Anything else would encourage people to drive Hummers, and that’s not the point of these credits.

Technically yes, but an initiative can contain language that stipulates the exact conditions under which it can be ignored or overridden. For instance, Proposition 98, the K-14 minimum percentage of the state budget mandate, is written that it can be suspended with a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislature.

The rule is that the voter initiative outranks anything that the Legislature can produce, and that the Legislature has no power to sidestep or overrule a voter initiative. That was why dimbulb Mark Leno tried to argue that Proposition 22 only applied to out-of-state marriages; otherwise, his repeated grandstanding bills were quite clearly trying to supersede the established Proposition 22, and would thus be struck down immediately.

Do you mean they can raise a child to become a good, model citizen, or do you mean like actually give birth (Ew)?

I mean getting some of them to admit that they cannot in fact concieve a child with their same sex partner, and that heterosexuality, in one form or another is necessary, is alarmingly difficult. Its simply denial. They want very much, indeed seem to have a psychological need, to believe that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It just aint so. And homos would be infinately more happy if they would just learn to come to terms with it.

I don’t believe that gays cannot raise children well, but I do believe that it is generally better for a child to be raised by their own mother and father than by a gay couple or even an adoptive straight couple for that matter. I also think gender matters. I think its better for a child to have a mom and a dad than to have a dad and his same-sex partner.

And in turn I believe a gay couple is preferable to a single parent. Yet single parents aren’t asking for marriage benefits. But if raising children is the criterion, why shouldn’t they?

Because marriage is a package of benefits intended to encourage the ideal, not the alternatives to the ideal. If we start treating alternatives as just as good as the ideal, then how exactly are we supposed to encourage ideals?

Ive said it before, and I’ll say it again. if you want the tax credits given for driving a hybrid, then don’t buy a Hummer.

Is your knee jerk reaction to automatically accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being a liberal amoral anti-theist slut?

You’ve got no idea who I am, whether I am single or not, whether I am faithful to my boyfriend or not, how often I have sex, how often I go looking for sex, and what kind of sex I have, if any. You do not know whether I am a Democrat, Republican, registered Independent or a member of some other party. You have no idea what religion I am, if any and how seriously I take my relationship with God. And, because you do not know me, you do not know how I view being gay, and where I put it in my list of characteristics that define Rob. So that is a very harsh charge to lay against somebody whom you know none of the particulars.

So leave the personal insults at the door when dealing with somebody whom you do not know.

Now, moving to the substantive part of the discussion.

You’re wrong. The most fundamental underpinning of the Constitution is the idea that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Everything flows from that, and neither a king in London, a president in Washington nor 51% of Californians can take that away from me. Those are off the table and non-negotiable unless the entire US Constitutional System is swept away.

You’re right, I do have problems with people foisting their moral disapproval on me because they can drum up sufficient numbers of people to the poll. You do too – were we to change the discussion to gun control, or free speech. In those areas, conservatives staunchly oppose the will of select majorities, holding that constitutional principles are higher. And, I suspect, you would oppose constitutional amendments prohibiting cigarette smoking or approving gambling – as were run in Ohio in 2006.

John in Dublin, California asked “I just finished my abenstee ballot, and I have only Prop 8 left to mark. I will give it one more night to think about and sleep on before I complete the ballot and mail it. Can’t someone convince me to vote against it?”

I gave him my answer in two parts.

1) I consider this an illegitimate intrusion of the government into my life, because the proponents of 8 are not demonstrating any other reason other than the fact that they want to, and they justify it by saying that, well, “the majority approves.” I consider that to be a very serious threat to individual liberty, because the only protections the minority has from the majority are the law and a whole lot more firepower.

The door to the idea that all of our civil liberties are open to revocation at the whim of the majority is one I wish to remain securely shut. Indeed, that is my greatest problem with the No on Prop 8 “I Decide” Ad featuring Austin – he says that “elections should give us new rights, not take them away.” And that is flat out wrong. Our rights and civil protections are not at the sufferance of the majority. They exist independent of the whim of the majority. And probably the most important – and certainly first listed – is the idea that government treats us all as equal under the law, not playing favorites based upon race, gender, color or creed.

Ultimately, equal treatment under the law for two men or two women who wish to be recognized as a third legal entity in the same manner as a man and a woman is an easy idea to just brush aside because it is unpopular, and because to our great disservice many who do use “complete sexual irresponsibility,” “antireligious bigotry” and “leftist political views” as the definitions of “gay” as a political identity, and not merely sexual/romantic attraction.

2) (the one you missed) Prop 8 is silly. Come November 6 and a Prop 8 passage, I can meet a guy in a bar, walk to the courthouse, and file for a domestic partnership, getting everything marriage offers except the name. Voting Yes on Prop 8 doesn’t prevent gays from shacking up and getting the automatic inheritance presumptions, the powers of attorney and proxy, the visitation rights, or the rest.

And a No vote isn’t going to force any other state to recognize my “marriage,” because their own DOMA laws and amendments prevent that. And if they didn’t, the Federal DOMA does. I won’t qualify for any of the federal marriage tax breaks either.

So what does YES on Prop 8 get you? It’s the Diet Coke of DOMAs – banning the name, but not the institution. If you truly oppose two gay guys or gals getting hitched, then write a DOMA that actually prevents ‘em getting hitched.

Should John, or you, disagree with me, you’re free to vote yes on Prop 8. I think you will not like the consequences coming down the pike, but you’ve got the right to choose in a way I deem unwise. I would rather you did not.

The hilarious part of this argument by gay liberals is that they whine that constitutional amendments are evil and awful — while quoting amendments as a basis for their arguments.

Yeah, I oppose stupid constitutional amendments – the Constitution of a nation or a state is to define the workings of it’s governmental system. It’s not the tool of policy implementation, and certainly should not be used as a sour grapes ploy to do an end-run around fundamental civil liberties just because you like it. Equal protection and treatment by the law is the sine qua non of the whole system. We weaken it at our peril.

Would it be We the People?

Troll Alert!!!

last time I read the Constitution, it established a Democratic Republic, to avoid the tyrany of the majority.

“We The People” formed a more perfect union; we didn’t entrust rule to the mob.

I will reprint a post that got eaten by the spam monster.

However, the same argument for legalizing gay marriage through judicial fiat, as quoted here, works equally well for all of them; after all, they’re just a question of morality and social mores.

No, it doesn’t, because the others are in of themselves, illegal. Face it, morals are decided by society as much as they are by the courts. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be deviant in the same way that pedophilia is, unless you are a throwback like Michael Savage. I know you don’t intend it, but the casual reader might think you do legally equate homosexuality with the others on a moral basis.

And now, the good ol’ “Slippery Slope”. Overused, especially by those who’s arguments are not very sturdy. Many argued against the invasion of Iraq because the power stalemate would be broken and would lead to a stronger and more dangerous Iran. It was a classic slippery slope argument… that turned out to come to fruition. Despite that prediction, both you and I supported our action in the region. If you would have had known this would indeed come to pass, would you have dropped your support for the invasion? The ACLU may often time border on the bazaar (didn’t they argue that chimps had the same rights as humans or something) but they are necessary, as every society needs to have someone pushing the boundaries. The United States would not exist without them. Neither would those poor souls in Rome who would not renounce their Christian faith, knowing the certain outcome.

You’ve been listening to too much Mark Levin. “Judicial Fiat” is code for judicial review. Though not in the constitution, the founders obviously saw the usefulness of the concept. Jefferson hated the concept, and thought Marshall was guilty of overreach in his decision of Madison v Marbury, BUT, neither Mr. J, nor any of the founding fathers, pushed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to bar the courts from using it.

But what if they had.

Jefferson, like many in the day, thought that the idea of constitutionality rested within the preview of the executive branch. The President would be the final judge of the constitutionality of legislation that reached his desk – the courts had no say in this. J thought that the legislature would never pass anything that could be unconstitutional in the first place (yes, even now I can hear John Adams scoffing at the naive idealist). So instead of an number of judges having the final say of the concept of Constitutionality in California, you would prefer Arnold, or before him, Gray Davis being the arbiter of such things… shutter.

It might be frightening to you, but what I sense is that you are denying the 1st A rights of the ballot proponents to petition the government for a redress of their grievances against the Ca Sup Ct’s unilateral action.

That’s essentially what happened. They had their day in court, they were heard, and it went against them. That is my problem with conservatives complaining about “judicial activism.” It’s not that they disagree with the principle of judicial review – conservatives love it when courts rule their way. Just look at the celebration over Heller. We love it when the judges vote for us, we only dislike it when the judges vote against us.

Ultimately, judicial review – and the ability of the courts to prevent popular majorities from violating our basic governmental principles – is as much a protector of the rights of conservatives as it is liberals. If not more, given the way the political tides are running. The Democrats with a fillibuster proof majority in Congress, control of the House and the Presidency – as is frighteningly possible – will ram the idea of “majority rules in everything” down our throats.

I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t like governing by referendum, and I especially do not like governing by constitutional amendment. I’m sorry, but issues of policy like minimum wage, or gambling (to quote two of the latest Ohio constitutional amendments) are not things that belong in a constitution. They are items of law for the legislature to consider. Should government by referendum (on at least the potential “I could lose my cushy Congressional seat” issues) continue and expand, I suggest a referendum for the voters to abolish the state legislature on the grounds of why pay people if they’re not doing their job?

It’s an age-old problem those of us in the gay civil rights movement could avoid completely if we only worked more effectively on convincing a majority of voters that marriage equality is good for society –and distancing ourselves from the radical gayLeft voices who plead “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn it” approach to winning over the voters.

I agree. The radical gay left needs a good stout application of duct tape to their mouths – or reasoning involving a much harder object. On a lot of issues. DADT, hate-crimes legislation, the general “America Hates Gays” and the Republican Party itself. Sadly, I think they’re more interested in scoring points off of the “bad guys” than ensuring that our gains are sustainable. Which means that for every step forward, we take two steps back. Or more.

In 2004, Rob, 11 states went against us because of the approach “leaders’ in our movement used… in 2008, alas, it’ll be another 3 more states. How many more states pass FMAs before the gay civil rights movement disassociates itself from the failed leadership and forges a new political consensus for marriage equality?

You’re preaching to the choir here. I live in Ohio, and I’m stuck with one of the more restrictive constitutional amendments on the subject. And my unofficial spot poll came about because of exactly those reasons – people took one look at things like the Folsom Street Fair and freaked out. Unfortunately, all gay guys (and to a lesser extent, gay gals) are branded with the mark of the most depraved among us.

And frankly, I think the faster we dump the “marriage equality” term, the better. Indeed, get government out of the whole marriage issue. Marriage is a sacrament from God for Catholicism, and holy for pretty much everybody. It’s a religious institution, and much of the venom and bile (on both sides) comes from that. The more extreme gay “rights” organizations are pushing to break the religions. I think we all know gay men who would be delighted to not only force anti-gay churches to allow them to marry, but force the churches to host the consummation.

Similarly, there are whackjobs like Fred Phelps (though he’s a Dem). But there are also a core group of decent people who think their religions are under attack – and when we argue for civil unions or domestic partnerships, or even just dating other guys, lots of the very same people have few problems with it.

In the end, the fight is about the word marriage, and much of the juice behind the anti-gay marriage debate comes from the word marriage. Indeed, I think Bruce quoted something like 52% of delegates to the Republican Convention were pro-gay civil union (I’m quoting from memory so the stat may not be completely accurate). Hardly the bastion of anti-gay prejudice people claim!

So compromise. Government handles the civil union of two people into a third entity. Call it a domestic partnership, or a civil union, or bob, or some other snappy title. Get government out of the word marriage. Restore marriage to it’s rightful place with the churches, and have them dispense it as their tenets dictate – as is their First Amendment right.

Like any good compromise, it gives everybody a little bit of what they want, nobody everything they want, and infuriates everybody.

Of course, that means that we gay guys and gals who take advantage of being legally joined with somebody else have to live up to the responsibility of being first and setting a good example. Or we’re gonna lose it.

You know, rob, it’s people like you who make me feel so strongly that things like Prop 8 must pass. Because what you’re arguing for is “judicial” dictatorship. You think that it’s good when an oligarchy that calls itself a “Supreme Court” forces on the rest of us the personal desires and whims of the members of that oligarchy. You think it’s good when the sovereignty of the voters is trampled by dishonest jerks who violate their oaths of office and rewrite on the Constitution.

You’re damn right the power of “we the people” is limited. What happens, Greg, when I convince 51% of the people to make your religion illegal because we disapprove? Shall we hound the Mormons to a new Utah? Put the snake handlers on a reservation somewhere?

Or shall we deprive you of your right to be as cussed, racist and ornery as you please, because 51% of the people who show up to vote decide your brand of cussed orneriness is “politically incorrect?” Hmmm, Greg? I’m sure I can find 51% of Californians who will find your politics distasteful. Shall the citizens of the State of California pass a proposition next year making it illegal to be a Republican?

Shall we take away your beer by constitutional amendment? The people demanded that particular idea as well. Or shall we take away your cigarettes? Simply because I can round up enough votes, and it’s bad for you?

Or your right to a gun? After all, the people in DC demanded that one as well.

Ultimately, the same principle you’re so hot to use today against “me” will come around and be used against you tomorrow, Greg. Because we can always find something you do that is “immoral” or “icky” or “distasteful.” And on that day, you will be standing here and saying “the government can’t do that” despite the fact somebody can drum up a majority to do so.

That’s why the minority of rich, highly educated, idle rich old guys limited the power of the ballot, Greg, and it’s ability to allow Government to intrude into your life. Because the tyranny of the majority is a fickle thing – in the end, everybody is some kind of minority. And yes, some day the majority will turn against something you find dear, and you will pray to God for an “activist judge” to stand up there and say “no.”

As opposed to just getting 4 members of the State Supreme Court to rewrite it according to their personal whims? Now that’s “way, way too easy.”

Well, you have an Initiative process because you want to have a way to “go around” the “special interests” dominating the Legislature.

So letting the Legislature rewrite an Initiative rather defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

ILC said:

Just for the record: Prop. 22 legally trumped anything the Legislature could have passed.

This is a classic Catch 22.

***

Wrong. Proponents of SSM could put a measure favoring SSM on the ballot at any time. They chose not to. Why?

Because they knew they’d lose?

That’s not “Catch-22″, that’s the triumph of Democracy.

We live in a country where the powers of the government are limited and proscribed, and where the government has to expressly justify why it must intrude into our lives.

Just out of curiosity, who did that limitation and proscribing? Would it be the voters, through their elected representatives?

Would it be We the People?

You know, rob, it’s people like you who make me feel so strongly that things like Prop 8 must pass. Because what you’re arguing for is “judicial” dictatorship. You think that it’s good when an oligarchy that calls itself a “Supreme Court” forces on the rest of us the personal desires and whims of the members of that oligarchy. You think it’s good when the sovereignty of the voters is trampled by dishonest jerks who violate their oaths of office and rewrite on the Constitution.

And that marks you as evil. It also marks you as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. I’ve sworn multiple oaths to oppose people like you. Unlike those scum on the “Courts”, I take my oaths seriously.

As we analyze in much more detail below, under California’s state constitution, amendments or repeals of initiative statutes themselves require approval of the voters to become effective.

If it’s true, then I would have wanted gay marriage to be enacted by a new initiative a few years from now, after we’ve put California’s Civil Unions law to good use and brought more skeptics around. As it is, we have a bass-ackward process where it was dictated by courts and now we vote on an initiative to repeal it, an initiative that (I think) will unfortunately win, setting us back decades.