What are your thoughts on the overturning of CA Proposition 8 today (August 4, 2010)?

I think it’s awesome and makes us a slightly less embarrassing nation as a whole.

@cockswain

I totally agree and high 5!

It makes sense. Let’s now wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

It seems there is still hope for america.

I’m thrilled, and hope it holds up. Rational and humane thought is at work again!

Cautious optimism.

Not looking forward to the inevitable “so this means you can marry your dog and rape children” comments from conservatives.

@Qingu Oh, you know I wouldn’t say that…:) I would comment though that “rational and humane” lie in the eye of the beholder….or something to that effect.

The ruling was totally expected. It will be sent to the 9th Circuit where it will be upheld, and then then SCOTUS where it will most likely be overturned. Don’t celebrate just yet.

My thoughts?

HOOOOORRRAAAAAYYYYY!

I hope the appeals go nowhere and we can get on to more important issues than trying to legislate divisive archaic pseudo-morality!

“I think it’s awesome and makes us a slightly less embarrassing nation as a whole.”

Word!

of course it’s a champagne super-moment in the sky, legal recognition for a couple and all, but remember folks.

Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers’ organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution.

Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947

Well, finally….

“Cautious optimism” is where I’m at too. Delighted, but it’s still going to be a long, hard climb.

It’s great for freedom. It gives dignity to gay couples wanting a committed relationship.

It’s a good thing.

I’m pleased, but it’s bittersweet. This isn’t enough.

It’s a travesty. We have lost a great battle in the Culture War.

What’s more, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of Californians. That the court would go ahead and ignore that does not suggest nice things.

Unless I am mistaken, there was a major conflict of interest, given that the judge was openly gay.

@Nullo Yeah, women and blacks shouldn’t be allowed to vote, either, and interracial marriages should be banned too…~

To answer the Q, I am pleased that people will be treated equally and fairly.

As I posted on my Facebook account, this decision makes me proud to call myself a Californian!

@Nullo I suppose you think Sandra Day O’Connor should have abstained from this supreme court case or any court case that affected women, yes? Does this rule only apply to minorities or should openly straight white men not be allowed to make rules that affect straight white men either?

This is for @Nullo and all others who are opposed to the overturning of Prop. 8.

Holy shit, @Nullo, what do you have against gay people?

Weeeeeeeeeeeee…..Yaaaaaaaaay!

@AstroChuck That was hilarious.

I have to say, I’m a little disappointed the general response @Nullo gets is “you must hate gay people”. I don’t know if he does, but wouldn’t a more appropriate response be “actually, it’s not a travesty because ____”?

@shilolo Actually, it is my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong), that the black vote (which was higher than usual due to Obama being a candidate, and which tends to be socially conservative) was key in securing the proposition’s approval.

I think it supports individual rights and freedoms, which is a good thing. I think that most libertarian-oriented people would agree.

I was extremely happy to see it on the front page of cnn. I never understood how people can impose their beliefs on others. We aren’t all the same! Get over it.

But I fear that those who oppose it will push to have it reversed once again.

@bob Generally that is how I try to respond, but suppressing the marital rights of gay people only seems several degrees better than slavery. Therefore, I tend to respond a bit more angrily at those who appear to condone such oppression.

I think it was only a matter of time.

As far as the “nay-sayers” go – lets show them what they haven’t shown us: love.

I feel vindicated. My side in the “culture war” is winning. :)

I’m with the cautiously optimistic folks here. It’s a step in the right direction!

@Nullo: What culture is that? The culture of bigotry and ignorance? See if you can take anything helpful away from this video. What side do you want to be on—what if your side is the baddies?

Our society is like an onion, with the outside layers being the ignoramus humans of our past. But if we gradually peel back layers, we become more progressive and rational, it just takes time. We just have to keep peeling back those layers lol.

I am extremely pleased by the overturning of Proposition 8. I believe that everyone, regardless of sexual preference is entitled to human rights, among them the right to marry the one they love. As I said on facebook, my faith in my home state has been partially restored.

Yay!!!!

I am seriously psyched! But I know that this is not over. While I am “cautiously optimistic,” I honestly hope that they keep appealing and the case gets sent the the Supreme Court. Because once the Supreme Court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional, it will change the whole country. No state will be able to ban gay marriage again, and that is the ultimate goal.

YAY for equal civil rights for all!

@Nullo The fact that Californians were allowed in the first place to vote on Prop 8 and therefore (by a small majority) remove a minority’s civil right, is a travesty. The judge did his job, and came to the conclusion Prop 8 is unconsititutional. That is his job, regardless of the result of the vote. ‘Checks and Balances’ and all that…

I have no faith that this decision will be upheld by the current Supreme Court.

It also amazes me that anyone would make the “will of the people” argument. If that was what law was based on, then we’d still have slavery and segregation in schools, among many other places. The people are not always right. They are often prejudiced and are in favor of things that violate the rights of others.

Just think. What if the people of a state voted to ban any religion from the state? That would be ok and enforceable under @Nullo‘s theory of the law.

@AstroChuck

Thanks much Chuck, for the excellent pie chart. :D

It was a great injustice and it has been reversed. A restriction on anyone’s civil rights is a threat to us all. I am very happy about this, but wary. In the first campaign on this issue, a coalition of churches in which the Mormon church became a conspicuous leader exhibiting a willingness to use their vast financial and political clout to force their religious beliefs on all Californians, flooded the state with anti-gay, pro-8 propaganda and ordered their self righteous flocks to the polls for a win.

There is a threat here at least as great as the obvious civil rights issue which we should see reprised in the coming battle.

I’m hesitant to speak for @Nullo, but I’m pretty sure he’s against gay marriage and homosexuality in general because the Bible says it’s wrong, an abomination.

The Bible says this in Leviticus, after it says adulteresses should be stoned to death but before it says that you should be able to legally purchase foreigners as slaves and hand them down to your children.

Based on past conversations with @Nullo, I am assuming he would like these Biblical laws enacted in the American legal code as well.

This is why we have a separation of powers and checks and balances. If 100% of people in the state of Dumbfuckistan vote that it’s okay to rape babies, we still have the ability to overturn that. The popular vote is, of course, important, but it isn’t the only deciding factor.

Feeling that institutionalizing homosexuality is wrong does not require religious conviction, it just requires common sense. And by common sense I mean it literally – as a majority of Americans feel the same.

I think most people, in their hear of hearts (even a large percentage of homosexuals), feel homosexuality is more or less like some internal Down Syndrome; something to be tolerated via compassion and empathy because it is not their fault, but not openly condoned, and certainly not celebrated, and FUCKING certainly not a relationship to bring a child up in.

Tax breaks – fine. Cat’s and dogs running around together – fine. Gay parades on Halloween – fine. But no matter how much you prance and dance you’ll never change the fact that being gay is a defect.

I swear to god half the people on this website live in San Francisco or Los Angeles and create this little delusional world (^) of self-supporting gay make-believe. Yitter and yap all you want fine people, but it doesn’t change a thing.

That’s what I think.

@ipso: It depresses me that people like you exist.

I don’t see gayness as a defect any more than I see left-handedness as a defect.

@ipso

No, it doesn’t require religious conviction, but it requires extreme ignorance, which you undoubtedly are guilty of.

Most people in their hearts feel that because most people, in America at least, have a Judeo-Christian upbringing and whether or not they ascribe to a religion, they’ve been surrounded by people who live their lives through a religion and thus the idea that being gay is wrong, something that comes from RELIGION, permeates through society and they feel the effects of it. It becomes part of their normal life; it’s part of their upbringing, whether or not they are even aware of it.

Where do you get the audacity to think you can even begin to speak for homosexuals? You think most homosexuals believe they have a disorder akin to Down’s Syndrome? Think again. The majority of homosexual teens who commit suicide for reasons other than being bullied are in the midst of an inner religious turmoil or conflict with themselves or their family. A homosexual who feels he or she has a disorder for the most part feels that way because of, you guessed, Judeo-Christian guilt. They are told by their family that something is wrong with them, they are raised in a society where people believe something is wrong with them, it comes from the outside. I was raised in an accepting tolerant society. As a homosexual, I have never felt that I have a disorder or a defect.

I bet you could not even put into words what you think is wrong with homosexuality. Nothing beyond “it’s just wrong”, because you yourself don’t even understand why it’s wrong. It’s just what you’re used to. “Common sense” is not an explanation. “Common sense” is a cop-out. It’s a way to avoid a rational argument for your position, stating that it’s just something in-grown in people, when it clearly is not.

If you can formulate an argument, I would like to see it, but I have serious doubts about ability to do so.

@ipso count me in as someone who lives outside of California (full disclosure I grew up there but not in LA of San Francisco), and does not see being gay as any kind of deficit. I do however see being narrow minded, hateful, and judgmental as incredible deficits.

@ipso, I think I’d rather see a child brought up by homosexuals than by you. (this is a huge understatement: I sincerely hope you don’t have children. And if you do, that someday they’ll explain the way the world works to you, and that you’ll listen.)

Out of curiosity, do you actually have any reason for believing that homosexuality is a defect? You didn’t state any. You made an appeal to common sense, but actually the idea you are referring to is “prejudice,” which bigots often like to conflate with common sense.

@ipso

If anyone here has a mental defect, it’s you.

Oh, and this is Ivan, checking in from rural, conservative west-Michigan.

@DrasticDreamer You are hilarious, that was great.

@ipso You are sick. And probably scared shitless that you’re gay.

I don’t care because California isn’t my state. I personally am not for it, but I am not going to attack anyone for it. And seriously if anyone attacks me for this comment..it somewhat shows how intolerant you are. I just don’t understand how one person has the right to over turn seven million votes. Granted no one has a right to dictate someones life, but the people of California voted..and they said no. This is somewhat taking the rights of Americans. We are entitled to an honest vote, and if people can overturn a fair vote..that makes me lose faith in this country.

@ducky_dnl

So if 7 million Californians voted to outlaw interracial marriage, it would be okay? If they voted to instate racial segregation in schools, it would be okay? Have you heard of “tyranny of the majority”?

@ducky_dnl, I think you’re confusing “tolerate” with “respect.” I tolerate your belief. I also tolerate the Ku Klux Klan. I certainly don’t respect either belief.

If you don’t understand how a judge can overrule a popular referendum, you should educate yourself about the American political system. It’s not a direct democracy. There’s this concept called the “balance of powers.” The judicial branch is supposed to provide a counterbalance to the whims of the masses.

I think there actually is a pretty good argument to be made that social change effected through judicial action is much less likely to be actually enacted than social change made legislatively.

@DominicX No, I didn’t. Thank you for telling me about that. I have my beliefs and you have yours. We can argue it all night, but neither of our opinions will change. So truce!

@Qingu Thanks for tolerating my belief. I’ll read up on it, but I thought it was a direct democracy?

@ducky_dnl, no, we’re not a direct democracy. We generally elect representatives to draw up legislation.

Popular referendums are an exception to that. However, they still fall within the legislative branch of government. The judicial branch exists to make sure legislation does not get enacted that contradicts the Constitution. Proposition 8 being a prime example.

As others have pointed out, a state’s voters could enact a popular referendum outlawing interracial marriage. And then one man—a judge—would overturn this legislation because it’s unconstitutional. That’s how our government works.

@ducky_dnl

The court’s job is to rule on the constitutionality of a law. If they deem that a law is unconstitutional, then it doesn’t matter how many people voted for it. The general public does not have the power to contradict the US Constitution.

I find this entire thread depressing. Some of the comments made about homosexuality are pretty nasty, but then instead of flagging it so it’s removed, or making a thoughtful response, most thought it’d be a better idea to reply with insults (and then high-five each other with GA’s). Not what I’d call a “thoughtful discussion”.

@Qingu I think it’s unfair to assume @Nullo shares all the beliefs of a group of people because he agrees on one thing. To illustrate my point, I’ll provide an example. It has been reported that blacks “were subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse” at a pro-gay rally. Since you also favor equallity in marriage, I guess that means that you also think that it’s okay to call black people “by the n-word”. In fact, one could even assume that you think blacks should be counted as three fifths, what with your love for the Constitution and all ~

For the record, I’m from Mexico and I believe in equal rights.

@ipso, you keep on repeating your belief that homosexuality is a defect without actually showing why it’s a defect. Also there isn’t a “gay gene.”

@bob_, I read your response several times and I can’t make heads or tails of it. Let me try to understand your question.

You’re asking whether or not I’m racist… because, since I support gay marriage and some gay people were observed being mean to black people, you think that would imply I’m okay with racism?

@ipso We already have the ability to prevent brown eyes, or blue eyes, and we can even choose the sex of our baby. Does that mean we should? Absolutely not.

As for the dying comment, I take full responsibility for it. No one but me said that, so don’t be angry at other people for what I said. However, it’s how I feel. I think the world would be better off without people with your kind of defects – the really intolerant, bigoted and scary ones. And who are you calling a hypocrite? You’re talking about eradicating gay people before they’re ever born, but somehow I’m the fucked up one for thinking the world is better off without people like you who only know how to hate? Funny.

I vote we stop feeding the troll

@ipso FYI, getting blind drunk during pregnancy does not cause Down Syndrome, it causes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Down Syndrome is a chromosomal linked genetic abnormality.

You are right about one thing, you are entitled to think whatever you want about this subject, as hateful and ignorant as it may be. Do I feel hatred toward you? No. Pity? Yes.

In answer to the original question . . . about f*cking time

@ipso

You still haven’t provided any reason for likening homosexuality to AIDS, cancer, and Down’s Syndrome other than “common sense”, which, as I explained earlier, is not a real reason. There’s no argument; there’s no rationale. Do better than that.

@Fly – “gayness cannot be cured, and by association cannot be prevented.” Now there’s clear logic for ya. Try that logic on AIDS and see how bad it looks. I’m assuming progress can and will be made.

@cockswain – xxxx[moded – my very first one]xxxx. You’re free to post anything you want. Yours is literally the worst post I’ve seen on this site. Other people are providing opinions and ideas, passionate or otherwise, while you just threaten..[his post also moded] . Nice. I respect almost every other post but yours. (And death girl – preaching tolerance by saying I should die – twice. Nice work there.)

I don’t hate gays, never said I did. I don’t hate people with Down Syndrome or FAS either. I don’t hate people with cancer. It’s not their fault. I would not “eradicate” anyone. I would however, given the choice, avoid all of the above – given the hypothetical example – and so would everyone I’ve ever known, and so would your kids, and parents, and probably yourselves.

No? Would each of you really knowingly, purposefully, have homosexual children?

Talk about intolerance. Just look at this thread. Many of you are so far Left your Right.

———-
@DominicX – yeah I did. They are all less than optimal “defects”, and given the choice, we would not have them in our children.

@ipso

That’s a faulty assumption to make. How do you know we would not have them? Cancer can cause you to become hospitalized or die. Down’s Syndrome prevents you from communication and many other basic functions of most people’s lives. Homosexuality does neither. How can you compare them?

Homosexuality is a defect in the same way that having red hair is a defect.

Phffft – I see my second entry was modded too as “flame-bait”. Here are the three most relevant paragraphs. (I just add this because there was a later comment about the “hypothetical example”.)
———

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s assume it is proven tomorrow that significant decrease in the likelihood of having homosexual children can be achieved if having X amount of beta-Carotene during the first trimester.

Would you recommend to your children [who are having children], or yourself, or your family to ignore this information? What would you do if homosexuality could be significantly decreased via simple adjustment of natural food intake?

Or are you like the deaf parents who demand to be able to have deaf kids?

@ipso

Deaf people cannot hear. They can’t enjoy music. Communication with other people will be difficult. A homosexual can do all of those things. A homosexual can even reproduce despite their sexual orientation. Again. Not comparable.

Right – but I notice you haven’t answered the question.

“Would you purposefully, knowingly, choose to have gay children even if you knew there was something simple to significantly reduce the chance of it, like in the hypothetical?”

@ipso

Yes, I would. I would because I do not believe there is anything wrong with being gay. Also, being gay myself, I could raise them in a loving and supportive environment and hopefully, through that, improve the world for future gay kids.

I’m from Maryland, and currently live in West-by-God-Virginia… hardly a liberal oasis. I would NOT attempt to prevent homosexuality in my children. Because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is not a defect.

I think there is something VERY wrong with knowingly inflicting that possibility on your unborn child.

Are you kidding me? Wow! Just woowww.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, but – given the choice – I find it very-very hard to believe people would not seek to give their children a non-gay life.

I would not change my pizza order from pepperoni to ham and mushrooms because there is nothing wrong with pepperoni.

I mean, sure, that’s not what was asked, but hey, it seems we can now come up with our own in-thread questions ~

Gay people are cool in my book. I’m happy for them.

To answer the question: YAY!! I’m beyond thrilled! As a gay man, I’m ecstatic!

[Mod says]: This question has been moved to Social with OP’s permission.

I would not change the genes of my kid to not become gay.
However, changing the genes to prevent them from becoming like ipso, that I might consider :D

Wait, Sarcasm is a mod?! How did that happen?!

If I actually wanted kids, and had the option (which is probably impossible: homosexuality does not have a straightforward genetic cause like Down’s syndrome) ... then sure, I’d make my kids gay.

Then they wouldn’t go out and get pregnant/knock girls up, which would mean less people on Earth in the future.

There’s a lovely article about the decision at Slate.com.

@ipso “Yours is literally the worst post I’ve seen on this site”

That makes me happy, but I hope that isn’t the last time you say that to me.

I would not choose to have a gay child, not because I think there’s something wrong with it, but because I think people in general are nasty enough without giving many of them another reason to be nasty. If one of my kids does turn out to be gay, it won’t change the way I feel about him or her, but I will worry more and feel sad for the potential hatred and bigotry they will encounter. I wouldn’t choose anything for them that would make their lives more difficult, and it’s a sad fact that being gay today can lead to difficulties. And yes, I’m aware that even as heterosexuals their lives can still end up being completely miserable!

The only thing I can compare it to is any other chance of birth that would lead to potential problems. Not defects, but things like complexion. I am so, so, so happy that none of my kids ended up with my complexion. They have my husband’s skin tone, so don’t burn to a crisp. They become rather tan by the end of summer, even with the sunscreen I smear them with obsessively. If any of them had my fair, freckly skin it wouldn’t change the way I feel about them, but it would make me worry that they would be more prone to skin cancer later in life.

@MissAusten, I suppose I was assuming that by the time I do decide to have a child, people like @ipso will either all be dead or marginalized and ignored, like we marginalize racists today.

@Qingu Yes, but even a marginalized racist can still beat the crap out of someone, or at the very least ruin their day with insults. I hope attitudes continue to change so that by the time my kids are having kids it isn’t such an issue.

The judge did an admirable job. The job of a justice is to interpret the law and administer a considered decision not express majority opinion nor mob mentality. The basis of racism in the South such as that which existed in Mississippi during the time that these civil rights workers were murdered was decidedly a majority.

“Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder, a state crime, the US Justice Department charged eighteen individuals under the 1870 US Force Act, with conspiring to deprive the three of their civil rights (by murder).”
This was the only way justice would have been served for this heinous crime.

The the will of the people is not always right and in such cases we depend upon justice not mob rules.

i guess some people do believe in modern love