JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
Sorry but i have to disagree. First if you believe everyone against gay marriage is automatically a bigot, then duh of course in your mind bigotry would be the deciding factor. No surprise there. Second how could a non bigoted person's mind not be affected if they are saying "that was not a good comment"? Enough "not good comments" might just change someones mind. I just feel if we limit the debate to bigotry then we will fail to address very relevant variables such as education and the socialization process that greatly influence how people think. I'm not saying bigotry isn't a relevant variable but if our only hope if for them to die off then I see little hope at all...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
IF the SCOTUS indicated that there is NO compelling Federal issue in Nelson v Baker and that it is ok for the states to enact bans on Gay Marriage it would seem to me that they are saying the right exists until banned...
Now then... those who'd seek to ban it do so because of their belief that it is wrong for Gays to get married and have the benefits of marriage (Federal and State) and to be an equal participant in the marriage right.. Gays are people non Gays are people too and there are more non Gays than Gays.. so Gays are a minority who have the right to be married until the States eliminate it...
It is the motive of the eliminators that causes the label Bigot... The term Bigot is pretty concise
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proved to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
Now then... those who'd seek to ban it do so because of their belief that it is wrong for Gays to get married and have the benefits of marriage (Federal and State) and to be an equal participant in the marriage right.. Gays are people non Gays are people too and there are more non Gays than Gays.. so Gays are a minority who have the right to be married until the States eliminate it...
It is the motive of the eliminators that causes the label Bigot... The term Bigot is pretty concise
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proved to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
How can something be a right if it can be banned? I think a more accurate reading would be "legal until banned." But either way, Baker v Nelson was 1972. Things are a little bit different now, over 3 decades later. Of course, it did take the SC almost 60 years to overturn Plessy...not that I expect the current make-up of the Court to give the go-ahead on the issue here.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
"Sorta sick logic..." was my thinking regarding that.. but consider this... IF marriage is a fundamental right for you and me... (assuming we are not Gay) then Marriage is a right that is held by the individual. Gay, not Gay what ever.. A Gay person can marry.... It follows then that since the States must specifically ban it it must exist until banned.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Exactly... which means that the Fundamental Right to marry is held by the individual... that is important in my thinking.. Since you hold that right as I do it exists... It is only when the right is to be used does an issue arise... to whom etc... The law has limits on the use of that right.. we know most of them if not all... BUT until a State enacts a law that eliminates Gay marriage Gay marriage is a doable right... The SC of Ca. determined that the right does exist.. so Prop 8 sought to remove it.. by Revision or as they say Amend.. So in CA before Prop 8 the right existed but states can by constitutional provision remove it... so The SCOTUS says, in essence, it is a States issue and not a 14th Amendment issue... but a fundamental right none-the-less... just not subject to Equal Protection Clause limit on the States...
edit: I don't think The SCOTUS has to apply Strict Scrutiny but do think Intermediate Scrutiny is appropriate in the application of the 14th over the states cuz of the gender issue. (Rational basis is far too low a standard)
I would add that the operational mode of a bigot is the unconscious and unexamined assumption that something he feels, and that is acquired also unconsciously via being introduced to that bias as a young person in the form of authority, purported truth via religious texts, teachers, guardians and peers, etc, is in and of itself correct, true, and good, and for no rational reason he or she can vocalize, enumerate, or logically explain. It's just the way things are and no further thought or analysis is ever thereafter applied or sought. This is why the bigot can't identify himself. It never occurred and can't occur to him that he is wrong because it would upset the entire mental apple cart of his or her mental conditioning.
It is this defensiveness, this unconscious need to protect a conditioning that has been internalized that creates the fixation and inflexibility the bigot exhibits. He is unconsciously frightened of the unknown, the loss of his world view and the exposure to his own feelings that world view protects him from. If homosexuals aren't evil is there then no evil, no God, no absolute truth? "Maybe the worthlessness I was made to feel when I didn't conform and was punished as a child was unjust. Maybe now, I too am unjust"
Very unsettling examining ones unconscious beliefs.
that doesn't mean that we shouldnt try to eliminate bigotry, everyone is a flawed human being of course..we all have built in biases that can skew our perceptions at times..that doesn't mean we shouldnt do our best to eliminate them..i try every day of my life
But if you think some is wrong, and there opinion is wrong - then according to the posted defination - you are a bigot.
Jschmuck2
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
How can a constitutional amendment be ruled by the court to be unconstitutional? Isn't that the whole point of amending it? To MAKE IT constitutional?
Don't forget the word AMERICAN Constitution.
Just because bigots and haters like yourself manage to manipulate ballots and pass a law that is Anti-American doesn't make it American.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
California has different processes for adding to and changing the constitution. Prop 8 could legally add to the constitution, but could not change it. The argument is that prop 8 is a change, because a previous court ruling said that the existing constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
It's a bit complicated. As far as I know there are three legal attacks on Prop 8. I don't remember 2 of them but one is an attack of the legality of the proposition based on whether it is an amendment to the constitution or a revision. Calif law has two standards for such changes. Amendments via initiative are OK if they are in fact amendments, which have a technical, complex and very vague definition, and need to pass by a majority vote only, whereas revisions, also very complex and vague, but dealing with quantitative and qualitative measurements, need first to pass the legislator by a 2/3rds vote, which Prop 8 did not.
Whether 8 is an amendment or a revision will have to be decided. Technically some argue that amendment has the better chance legally, whereas I would say that from an emotional point of view, the fact that it denies a protected class a right to marry somebody they love, it seems to me to be hideously and obviously revisionist and I hope the court agrees.
There is no principle more clear, intended, and fundamental to being an American than the profound and deliberate intention of our nations Constitution than that it protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny, the bigotry, stupidity, and ignorance of the majority. And just so is the intention of the California constitution. Nothing could be more revisionist than to undo this fundamental and vital principle.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Moonbeam makes an informative post and doesn't resort to personal insults? It must be a cold day in hell.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Moonbeam makes an informative post and doesn't resort to personal insults? It must be a cold day in hell.
He made a post that I could read without having to shake my head and say, "OK, how would someone on acid read this?" Which, honestly, is a little disappointing; I like Moonbeam's bizarre use of language, which forces me to consider a perspective I never, in a million years, would have considered. But he's absolutely right; Proposition 8 is a truly disgusting piece of legislation that has no business existing anywhere in our country.
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter