This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Is it weird to be 23 and single?
- Im gay but a christian
- Aussie police uninvited from Mardi Gras after double homicide
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Muslim marriage divorce
- Of mice and Men essay
- Queer Muslim female
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- UK equivelant of American cities...
- Why dont women do it??
- gay boy
- elizabeth i marriage n heir
- Can I trust my bisexual boy friend to have any friends
- My best friend doesn’t like me
- Love in Islam: Qs for Muslim brothers and sisters!
- Muslim - Am i allowed to have physical contact with the in this circumstance
- Am I being scammed/catfished
- let’s be besties 🇧🇩 🇵🇰 🇮🇳 🇸🇴 🇵🇸
- Why is religion against sex?
Ban on Gay Marriage overturned in California!
Scroll to see replies
It's funny how when they agree about something in the constitution its seen as perfection, but if they don't agree about a bit then they see nothing wrong with ignoring or editing it!
And marriage isn't necessarily christian, it predates christianity. Regardless, I'm sure homosexuals celebrate christmas, I do as an atheist, just because its something religious people happen to do, doesn't mean you have to share their opinion about it.
And marriage isn't necessarily christian, it predates christianity. Regardless, I'm sure homosexuals celebrate christmas, I do as an atheist, just because its something religious people happen to do, doesn't mean you have to share their opinion about it.
Yayayayay!
SiobhanC
What does the Judge being gay have to do with it? are you saying they can't be impartial? 
The same judge was also appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H Bush, I doubt he is the most natural liberal, "activist judge".
Minorities that are discriminated against by the majority shouldn't have to wait for the majorites approval, if that was the case then segregation would still be around.
The same judge was also appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H Bush, I doubt he is the most natural liberal, "activist judge".
Minorities that are discriminated against by the majority shouldn't have to wait for the majorites approval, if that was the case then segregation would still be around.
In regards to seeking equality then a gay judge overturning a vote of the people rather than the people overturning the vote will be seen as no real progress. It takes away the possibility of society itself making the change. The judge is just one person, in regards of progress this is useless as until it is made by the people all that changes is the right to marry not the attitudes of society.
The people who voted for the proposition have now been told that their voice doesnt matter, this cannot help anyone. Silencing the people will only increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community and if the only goal was to get rights then this was a good decision but what most wanted was the people to recognize them as equal. Which has now been done by a single judge, progress in regards to rights is a given but no doubt an increase in negative attitudes will come about from this.
Devel
In regards to seeking equality then a gay judge overturning a vote of the people rather than the people overturning the vote will be seen as no real progress. It takes away the possibility of society itself making the change. The judge is just one person, in regards of progress this is useless as until it is made by the people all that changes is the right to marry not the attitudes of society.
The people who voted for the proposition have now been told that their voice doesnt matter, this cannot help anyone. Silencing the people will only increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community and if the only goal was to get rights then this was a good decision but what most wanted was the people to recognize them as equal. Which has now been done by a single judge, progress in regards to rights is a given but no doubt an increase in negative attitudes will come about from this.
The people who voted for the proposition have now been told that their voice doesnt matter, this cannot help anyone. Silencing the people will only increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community and if the only goal was to get rights then this was a good decision but what most wanted was the people to recognize them as equal. Which has now been done by a single judge, progress in regards to rights is a given but no doubt an increase in negative attitudes will come about from this.
I'm sorry, but the point that the judge is gay is irrelevent. Judges are meant to be impartial which I believe the judge is, do you think women judges shouldn't be allowed to be involved with womens issues?
In this case the voters opinion DOESN'T matter, Marriage has been proved to be a fundemental right by the supreme court, and rights cannot be voted on.
From the decision:
That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Quoting a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case)
And:
“An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determination of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determination must find at least some support in evidence … Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough (page 24.)”
Court cases can also educate the public, so in California in a few years it will probably be found support for gay marriage will have gone up. Anyway, it still doesn't matter what public opinion is on civil rights.
I don't necessarily agree with the view that creating/enforcing laws doesn't bring about social change.
The most obvious example of this in a marriage case is Loving v Virginia when it struck down the 16 existing miscegenation state laws. At the time it was met with fierce opposition in numerous states, but the very thought of such a ban now is confuddling and makes us wonder what the hell they were all thinking back then. It is partially true to say that laws don't bring immediete social change, but I also think it would be naive to say that ruling had no effect on how the issue was played out over the subsequent decades. It was arguably already moving in that direction, but the opposition it did face was quashed as it had no rational basis in law. As Judge Walker pointed out (and SiobhanC cited above) there is no democratic right to vote on the civil rights of another person; that's why they are called a right.
Interestingly, Alabama never removed its inter-racial marriage ban from its state constitution until 2000. It was not enforced between the court ruling and 2000, but it was left as an ugly reminder of what happens when mob rule decides what rights people have in society. The court ruling brought about a fantastic social change across America, and it now causes our generation to just think "Wtf?" when we learn about such discrimination. We could argue until we're blue in the face on what extent it brought about social change, but to say that social change can only be achieved using a majority verdict is not, imo, realistic.
The most obvious example of this in a marriage case is Loving v Virginia when it struck down the 16 existing miscegenation state laws. At the time it was met with fierce opposition in numerous states, but the very thought of such a ban now is confuddling and makes us wonder what the hell they were all thinking back then. It is partially true to say that laws don't bring immediete social change, but I also think it would be naive to say that ruling had no effect on how the issue was played out over the subsequent decades. It was arguably already moving in that direction, but the opposition it did face was quashed as it had no rational basis in law. As Judge Walker pointed out (and SiobhanC cited above) there is no democratic right to vote on the civil rights of another person; that's why they are called a right.
Interestingly, Alabama never removed its inter-racial marriage ban from its state constitution until 2000. It was not enforced between the court ruling and 2000, but it was left as an ugly reminder of what happens when mob rule decides what rights people have in society. The court ruling brought about a fantastic social change across America, and it now causes our generation to just think "Wtf?" when we learn about such discrimination. We could argue until we're blue in the face on what extent it brought about social change, but to say that social change can only be achieved using a majority verdict is not, imo, realistic.
SiobhanC
I'm sorry, but the point that the judge is gay is irrelevent. Judges are meant to be impartial which I believe the judge is, do you think women judges shouldn't be allowed to be involved with womens issues?
In this case the voters opinion DOESN'T matter, Marriage has been proved to be a fundemental right by the supreme court, and rights cannot be voted on.
Court cases can also educate the public, so in California in a few years it will probably be found support for gay marriage will have gone up. Anyway, it still doesn't matter what public opinion is on civil rights.
In this case the voters opinion DOESN'T matter, Marriage has been proved to be a fundemental right by the supreme court, and rights cannot be voted on.
Court cases can also educate the public, so in California in a few years it will probably be found support for gay marriage will have gone up. Anyway, it still doesn't matter what public opinion is on civil rights.
It is relevant when looking at how those against will react to the decision. A gay judge struck down a public vote regarding a gay issue. You may think the judge was impartial as will all those in favour, those against will no doubt see this as an attack on their right to speak out on issues and will only increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community.
You are missing the point. The proposition happened and the majority were in agreement that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You may not agree with this view but the people spoke. Now all this shows is right now in regards to the public there is not a view of equality in California. Had there been another proposition to change the outcome then this would have showed a view of equality. A single judge shows nothing other than its a right. Much more change would be brought about if the majority votes for equality, not a single judge and the minority of a state.
It does matter, not in the existence of such rights but for the hope of true equality. Rights alone do not bring equality the people do. For example African Americans overall are not equal in American society, they have equal rights but in terms of for example employment chances and education they are not equal. Just creating rights and saying someone is equal does not make equality.
The crux of the matter is that Prop 8 was deemed, and quite rightly so, to be unconstitutional.
It was in direct violation of the fundamental civil rights and equality that all citizens are entitled to.
That trumps democracy.
It shouldn't have been put up to vote in the first place, but **** happens.
It was in direct violation of the fundamental civil rights and equality that all citizens are entitled to.
That trumps democracy.
It shouldn't have been put up to vote in the first place, but **** happens.
Devel
It is relevant when looking at how those against will react to the decision. A gay judge struck down a public vote regarding a gay issue. You may think the judge was impartial as will all those in favour, those against will no doubt see this as an attack on their right to speak out on issues and will only increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community.
You are missing the point. The proposition happened and the majority were in agreement that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You may not agree with this view but the people spoke. Now all this shows is right now in regards to the public there is not a view of equality in California. Had there been another proposition to change the outcome then this would have showed a view of equality. A single judge shows nothing other than its a right. Much more change would be brought about if the majority votes for equality, not a single judge and the minority of a state.
It does matter, not in the existence of such rights but for the hope of true equality. Rights alone do not bring equality the people do. For example African Americans overall are not equal in American society, they have equal rights but in terms of for example employment chances and education they are not equal. Just creating rights and saying someone is equal does not make equality.
You are missing the point. The proposition happened and the majority were in agreement that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You may not agree with this view but the people spoke. Now all this shows is right now in regards to the public there is not a view of equality in California. Had there been another proposition to change the outcome then this would have showed a view of equality. A single judge shows nothing other than its a right. Much more change would be brought about if the majority votes for equality, not a single judge and the minority of a state.
It does matter, not in the existence of such rights but for the hope of true equality. Rights alone do not bring equality the people do. For example African Americans overall are not equal in American society, they have equal rights but in terms of for example employment chances and education they are not equal. Just creating rights and saying someone is equal does not make equality.
I repeat, are african american judges and women judges allowed to be involved with cases that involve thier gender/race? or are the only true impartial judges straight, white men?
Surely those judges are inherently opposed to rights that don't concern them, therefore just as biased.Judge Walker was actually opposed by Democrats at the time of his appointment for lacking "sensitivity" to gays. Source
How about the supreme court who have stated that marriage is a fundemental right and rights cannot be up for public vote? As I have given the quotes of.
This ruling is not the end of it, it will go to a higher up court who will be able to strike down/uphold the ruling. The judge doesn't have the only say, the judge ordered a temporary halt on the marriages taking place, which will probably be extended till another court hears it.
SiobhanC
I repeat, are african american judges and women judges allowed to be involved with cases that involve thier gender/race? or are the only true impartial judges straight, white men? Surely those judges are inherently opposed to rights that don't concern them, therefore just as biased.
Judge Walker was actually opposed by Democrats at the time of his appointment for lacking "sensitivity" to gays. Source
How about the supreme court who have stated that marriage is a fundemental right and rights cannot be up for public vote? As I have given the quotes of.
This ruling is not the end of it, it will go to a higher up court who will be able to strike down/uphold the ruling. The judge doesn't have the only say, the judge ordered a temporary halt on the marriages taking place, which will probably be extended till another court hears it.
Surely those judges are inherently opposed to rights that don't concern them, therefore just as biased.Judge Walker was actually opposed by Democrats at the time of his appointment for lacking "sensitivity" to gays. Source
How about the supreme court who have stated that marriage is a fundemental right and rights cannot be up for public vote? As I have given the quotes of.
This ruling is not the end of it, it will go to a higher up court who will be able to strike down/uphold the ruling. The judge doesn't have the only say, the judge ordered a temporary halt on the marriages taking place, which will probably be extended till another court hears it.
As I said, the way those who were in support of Prop 8 (the majority) will view this then yes the fact it was a single gay judge is important. It will create further divides and increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community. It has nothing to do with being impartial but how the other side are likely to view it.
The right to marriage is not so simple. Some will view it as the right to marry the opposite sex which is what was voted in favour of. Others will view it as the right to marry any gender. This is not an argument worth having as none of this is important in what I have been saying.
Equality cannot be created by judges or governments. The rights that come with equality can but no one can force a view of equality upon someone. Society should be given the chance to vote for itself and make the change, the best way to right the wrongs of Prop 8 is not by a judge but by the public. It would show those against it as being the minority for the first time in history in California but for now the idea of equality is shared only by the minority which shows no real progess in terms of a changing society.
Devel
As I said, the way those who were in support of Prop 8 (the majority) will view this then yes the fact it was a single gay judge is important. It will create further divides and increase the negative attitudes towards the gay community. It has nothing to do with being impartial but how the other side are likely to view it.
The right to marriage is not so simple. Some will view it as the right to marry the opposite sex which is what was voted in favour of. Others will view it as the right to marry any gender. This is not an argument worth having as none of this is important in what I have been saying.
Equality cannot be created by judges or governments. The rights that come with equality can but no one can force a view of equality upon someone. Society should be given the chance to vote for itself and make the change, the best way to right the wrongs of Prop 8 is not by a judge but by the public. It would show those against it as being the minority for the first time in history in California but for now the idea of equality is shared only by the minority which shows no real progess in terms of a changing society.
The right to marriage is not so simple. Some will view it as the right to marry the opposite sex which is what was voted in favour of. Others will view it as the right to marry any gender. This is not an argument worth having as none of this is important in what I have been saying.
Equality cannot be created by judges or governments. The rights that come with equality can but no one can force a view of equality upon someone. Society should be given the chance to vote for itself and make the change, the best way to right the wrongs of Prop 8 is not by a judge but by the public. It would show those against it as being the minority for the first time in history in California but for now the idea of equality is shared only by the minority which shows no real progess in terms of a changing society.
I agree that equality can't be created by judges, but it helps!
There can't be equality in society while there is inequality in the law. People are allowed to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the state doesn't have to validate their attitudes.
For instance African Americans still don't have equality, for sure, but it's clearly a lot better for them that their is no legal inequality, should they have waited for majority approval? This is the same principle.
Personally I find protection of minority rights to be more important than the outdated attitudes of the majority.
Awesome.
Jesse_Mac
Well what do you think is a bigger disgrace - overturning a 52:48 split or denying fundemental rights to uphold the ideals of a story book?
In the case of constitutional rights, no American does not have the right to marry. The proposition was about what marriage should be.
The issue is not about overturning but about the hope of equality in society. If you look past the marriage issue and into the bigger picture then the true aim is for the gay community to be viewed as equal by general society. Overturning the proposition does not bring anything like this, it begins the process of giving a right back but does little in the way of changing attitudes.
Thoughts?
This is probably the first time I've been proud of anything this country has done in well over a decade
I really couldn't care less.
Related discussions
- Is it weird to be 23 and single?
- Im gay but a christian
- Aussie police uninvited from Mardi Gras after double homicide
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Muslim marriage divorce
- Of mice and Men essay
- Queer Muslim female
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- UK equivelant of American cities...
- Why dont women do it??
- gay boy
- elizabeth i marriage n heir
- Can I trust my bisexual boy friend to have any friends
- My best friend doesn’t like me
- Love in Islam: Qs for Muslim brothers and sisters!
- Muslim - Am i allowed to have physical contact with the in this circumstance
- Am I being scammed/catfished
- let’s be besties 🇧🇩 🇵🇰 🇮🇳 🇸🇴 🇵🇸
- Why is religion against sex?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
