prop 8 update
15/6/10 19:45![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI don't know who has been following the Prop 8 trial out in California, but here's an update.
The judge has issued a series of questions to both sides. The questions are here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677
I welcome your responses to any/all of the questions. My two cents is in regards to:
"What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman? What evidence shows that that limitation no longer enjoys constitutional recognition?"
Loaded question; it implies A) marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman [I would argue it's often been multiple wives, and in some places even multiple husbands; to say it has historically been limited to a man and a woman, well, it's cherry picking history] B) the limitation has enjoyed constitutional recognition [I don't know where in the constitution marriage rights are specifically enumerated on{if it turns out they are somewhere, please inform me so I can say: FML...}]
Then, even if we accept A as true:
History is full of mistakes and we are all willing to admit that; nobody can deny that in certain places/times ritual killings were the historical norm. We cannot infer from history showing a trend of behavior that the behavior was the only correct way to act.
Then, even if we accept B as true:
To suppose a constitutional limitation on the liberty of citizens derived from the discriminatory dislike of a sub-group that wants nothing more than equal protection under the law--it goes against the spirit of the constitution if not the letter. The 9th amendment to the bill of rights states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right of marriage is not enumerated in the constitution, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The limitation on same-sex marriages has vanished in a number of states of the Union--there is no reason to believe that those states have violated the constitution of the United States; they have in fact enacted the spirit of the constitution--a constitution designed to protect the rights of the citizens of this great country. Thank you.
That's clearly not worthy of the judges consideration; but you aren't the judge in the real trial; what do you, oh internet judges, think of those questions and my response?
The judge has issued a series of questions to both sides. The questions are here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677
I welcome your responses to any/all of the questions. My two cents is in regards to:
"What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman? What evidence shows that that limitation no longer enjoys constitutional recognition?"
Loaded question; it implies A) marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman [I would argue it's often been multiple wives, and in some places even multiple husbands; to say it has historically been limited to a man and a woman, well, it's cherry picking history] B) the limitation has enjoyed constitutional recognition [I don't know where in the constitution marriage rights are specifically enumerated on{if it turns out they are somewhere, please inform me so I can say: FML...}]
Then, even if we accept A as true:
History is full of mistakes and we are all willing to admit that; nobody can deny that in certain places/times ritual killings were the historical norm. We cannot infer from history showing a trend of behavior that the behavior was the only correct way to act.
Then, even if we accept B as true:
To suppose a constitutional limitation on the liberty of citizens derived from the discriminatory dislike of a sub-group that wants nothing more than equal protection under the law--it goes against the spirit of the constitution if not the letter. The 9th amendment to the bill of rights states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right of marriage is not enumerated in the constitution, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The limitation on same-sex marriages has vanished in a number of states of the Union--there is no reason to believe that those states have violated the constitution of the United States; they have in fact enacted the spirit of the constitution--a constitution designed to protect the rights of the citizens of this great country. Thank you.
That's clearly not worthy of the judges consideration; but you aren't the judge in the real trial; what do you, oh internet judges, think of those questions and my response?
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/10 23:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/6/10 23:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 01:40 (UTC)Most libertarians and many conservatives even recognize that the problem with the gay marriage issue is not gay marriages but rather government sanctioning of ANY marriage to begin with and offering special privileges based on that institution.
Government should be banned from all laws regarding marriage and then people are free to call whatever they want a marriage.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 04:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 04:52 (UTC)If someone agrees with me on a specific issue in a way that can be integrated, their reasoning won't be of a primary concern. If someone disagrees with my reasoning and disagrees with my conclusion, then there's not much I can do. I have to ally with the first person just because it gives me a victory.
If homosexual marriage advocates hadn't made it about being unfair discrimination (hetero vs homo) and more about how the definition of marriage as we employ it is just archaic, it would have broken up the alignment between religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Because we wouldn't be arguing over whether marriage means straight or gay or even what it means but rather whether or not if we should change and adapt to new social standards.
Going through the courts to really force the issue under Equal Protection just really sealed the deal on that opposition though.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 08:32 (UTC)The libertarian solution, if it were advanced as the Republicans' main position instead of as an afterthought to its current dogged defense of the status-quo, would probably alienate the religious base but it would earn plenty of support from the left side of the aisle.
I honestly think the liberals would be better allies to you on this issue than the right-christians.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 08:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 12:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 15:39 (UTC)As far as my own personal view on this issue I'm really more of a 'Pox on both your houses' kinda guy.
I disagree with the right because there is no moral or logical reason for their stand save for the writings of some bronze age tribesmen that has been cherry picked to support what makes them feel comfortable.
I disagree with the left because their stance is clearly disingenuous and intellectually flawed, they claim to support 'equal rights' and define the right in question as 'the right to marry anyone of your choosing' ans yet they are quick to condemn all other forms of marriage that would be politically inconvenient for them (incestuous, plural, inter species, etc.). Simply put if a right to marry anyone you choose exists then all possible marriages between consenting individuals must be allowed. Therefore it has become obvious that they are more concerned with rubbing their lifestyle in the noses of the right by claiming a word the right holds as sacred to mean something they find abhorrent.
In the end, if the goal of most liberals was in fact simply equal marriage rights then yes, they would be a better ally, the problem here is however it is not I (or other libertarians like me) who need an ally on this issue because it is about 347983 on out list of priorities. Sure, we'd rather see the whole government sanction of marriage eliminated and replaced with a system of private contracts that are merely adjudicated by the courts but it is not important to us. On the other hand it is the Right and Left that should be reaching out to us to be their allies and neither is because they are too busy fighting over irrelevant things to really care about a solution, it is total victory or nothing for both sides.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 16:47 (UTC)Personally, I'm a non-monogamist and I think plural marriage is A-OK. Incest gives me the willies, but if it happens between adults I can't actually object to it on moral grounds. That leaves non-adult incest and interspecies relationships, which I think can both be rejected out of hand on consent grounds.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 18:15 (UTC)What I object to is when Gay Marriage supporters respond to criticism's from the right on the slippery slope leading to all of the above other types of marriages with "Of course what we are saying doesn't mean that, marriage is obviously an institution restricted to being between 2 unrelated consenting adults" rather than taking the conservatives on and showing how underage marriages and bestiality would not be allowed on the consent grounds (although if someone eventually genetically engineers a species of animal capable of providing consent we may have to look at the bestiality issue again) and that there is no legitimate reason not to allow plural and even incestuous marriages between consenting adults.
It basically destroys any moral legitimacy they may have had.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 18:59 (UTC)Not to worry, your friendly local Religious Right is standing staunchly in the way of any scientific progress which could lead us down this road anyway. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 19:34 (UTC)Actually if I had to guess, given the demographic problems and general resistance to immigration my money is on Japan doing this so they can have a genetically engineered workforce of essentially slave labor to handle the manual labor their population will not be able to support in 3 or 4 generations. Course they could go the other way and make it robots too but I think we're closer to genetically engineering intelligence into a species than we are to a true artificial intelligence.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 04:25 (UTC)Defense? Pff.
When the courts get wanderlust the legislature has to be strict in its language. Stating that federal laws governing marriage refer to a specific arrangement keeps courts from broadening that on whim.
Of course, I take a slightly different view on the issue than some on the right. I view it just as another arrangement that the state allows. Akin to incorporation. Ergo it's only a matter of what arrangements they allow. If a state votes to allow marriage to consist of a single polar arrangement between a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, or two women and a man... it really doesn't bother me. All gripes I have with the issue of marriage and what it means is who is deciding what it means. Ultimately, the choice is up to the people.
When my state votes on it, I'll vote my beliefs based on the written issue. When another state votes on it, I won't care.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 18:58 (UTC)I think there's more to it than that, since marriages are portable across state lines... unless the other state doesn't recognize it. This is why people care what other states do, because for every state that bans it, there's one less state a gay couple can enjoy equal rights in.
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/10 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/6/10 23:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 00:10 (UTC)Consider this a form of political CAPTCHA.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 03:45 (UTC)He is sentient. He just doesn't know how an organic response would be from someone who holds those views. He's gotten himself into a pickle because he took the act too far into parody and now he's not having an easy time going back to serious.
The best actor can be something he never was. Regular people, like Steve, just can't do it.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 03:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 04:01 (UTC)In debates especially, we're usually not debating others as much as we're debating the impression we have of others. And that's why he has so many people going. Because people out there really do think they're debating "him" when they're debating generic right wingers.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 04:21 (UTC)