Comments on: Coming soon to a state near you http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html Slapping my bumper stickers on the Internet Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:51:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Scott Allan http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1431 Scott Allan Mon, 19 May 2008 11:59:30 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1431 Silke, You should stop by more often. It's nice to have a healthy debate from time to time. Scott Allans last blog post..<a href="http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html" rel="nofollow">Coming soon to a state near you</a> Silke,

You should stop by more often. It’s nice to have a healthy debate from time to time.

Scott Allans last blog post..Coming soon to a state near you

]]> By: Don http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1430 Don Mon, 19 May 2008 11:37:38 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1430   The majority of California voters indicated that they wanted marriage to be defined as being only between a man and a woman when they approved Proposition 22 with 61% of the total vote. If those who initiated Prop 22 had used it to amend the state constitution rather than just the Family Code this entire episode could have been avoided, unless someone challenged that provision of the constitution in court. In that event, it seems the court would have to rule that a constitutional provision is unconstitutional. That’s difficult to comprehend.  
The majority of California voters indicated that they wanted marriage to be defined as being only between a man and a woman when they approved Proposition 22 with 61% of the total vote. If those who initiated Prop 22 had used it to amend the state constitution rather than just the Family Code this entire episode could have been avoided, unless someone challenged that provision of the constitution in court. In that event, it seems the court would have to rule that a constitutional provision is unconstitutional. That’s difficult to comprehend.

]]> By: Silke http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1429 Silke Mon, 19 May 2008 01:46:30 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1429   <strong>Don said: Silke’s later quotation actually does say it best, and it seems to support what Scott has said for the most part.</strong>   No it doesn’t. It demonstrates that the people of California keep changing their mind on this issue. <strong>Don said: What I would ask Silke is where in the California Constitution does it say that Californians have a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”?</strong> “Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”   <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF</a>   I agree with the Court that a parallel institution of domestic partnership “inevitably will . . . be viewed as of lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship.”    
Don said: Silke’s later quotation actually does say it best, and it seems to support what Scott has said for the most part.
 
No it doesn’t. It demonstrates that the people of California keep changing their mind on this issue.

Don said: What I would ask Silke is where in the California Constitution does it say that Californians have a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”?

“Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”
 
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
 
I agree with the Court that a parallel institution of domestic partnership “inevitably will . . . be viewed as of lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship.”
 

]]> By: Don http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1428 Don Sun, 18 May 2008 22:37:21 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1428 Silke said, “Actually the California legislator did pass such a law…twice, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed them.” If true, all that means is that no such law was ever on the books in California.   Silke’s later quotation actually does say it best, and it seems to support what Scott has said for the most part. What I would ask Silke is where in the California Constitution does it say that Californians have a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship."?   Silke said, “Actually the California legislator did pass such a law…twice, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed them.” If true, all that means is that no such law was ever on the books in California.
 
Silke’s later quotation actually does say it best, and it seems to support what Scott has said for the most part. What I would ask Silke is where in the California Constitution does it say that Californians have a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”?
 

]]> By: Don http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1427 Don Sun, 18 May 2008 19:04:37 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1427 Scott, and all other readers who agree with Scott, please join me and others in attempting to make Alabama the 25th Initiative and Referendum state. My suggestion as to how that might be accomplished can be read @ <a href="http://www.doctoriq.com/youcan.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.doctoriq.com/youcan.htm</a>.  If anyone has a better idea, please let us know about it.   Scott, and all other readers who agree with Scott, please join me and others in attempting to make Alabama the 25th Initiative and Referendum state. My suggestion as to how that might be accomplished can be read @ http://www.doctoriq.com/youcan.htm.  If anyone has a better idea, please let us know about it.
 

]]> By: Scott Allan http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1426 Scott Allan Sun, 18 May 2008 18:30:53 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1426 <p>I sure do Don.   Maybe judges would think twice before acting on a personal agenda.</p> I sure do Don.   Maybe judges would think twice before acting on a personal agenda.

]]> By: Silke http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1424 Silke Sun, 18 May 2008 16:35:56 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1424   <strong>Scott said: If the state has such a compelling interest, then there should be laws to support that. </strong>   Actually the California legislator did pass such a law…twice, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed them. He has since stated he supports the Court’s decision and does not support a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.   <strong>Scott said:…but for activist judges to create such a law by themselves, they are imposing their view (and yours) of how society should be constructed over the will of the people.</strong>   I think this article says it best:   "When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it's particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)"   <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2191500" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/id/2191500</a>     <strong>Scott said: Despite the absurdity of some of my examples (which did not include incest or pedophilia by the way) they demonstrate a slippery slope. </strong>   But if there is a clear moral and legal distinction between gay marriage and your other examples then a clar line can be drawn and the definition of marriage is not subject to the “slippery slope.” Silkes last blog post..<a href="http://hooahwife.com/?p=2780" rel="nofollow">Stuff White People Like</a>  
Scott said: If the state has such a compelling interest, then there should be laws to support that.
 
Actually the California legislator did pass such a law…twice, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed them. He has since stated he supports the Court’s decision and does not support a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
 
Scott said:…but for activist judges to create such a law by themselves, they are imposing their view (and yours) of how society should be constructed over the will of the people.
 
I think this article says it best:
 
“When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” But then today the state’s activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it’s particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)”
 
http://www.slate.com/id/2191500
 
 
Scott said: Despite the absurdity of some of my examples (which did not include incest or pedophilia by the way) they demonstrate a slippery slope.
 
But if there is a clear moral and legal distinction between gay marriage and your other examples then a clar line can be drawn and the definition of marriage is not subject to the “slippery slope.”

Silkes last blog post..Stuff White People Like

]]> By: Don http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1423 Don Sun, 18 May 2008 15:08:04 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1423 Californians at least have the tool citizens need to either recall elected officials (I’m guessing that includes the judges) or to change their Constitution, and they have shown a propensity to use, and sometimes over-use, it. It’s called Initiative and Referendum (I&R). And I believe a recall provision is already a part of the California Constitution.   Don’t you wish Alabama had both I&R and a recall provision in its Constitution? Californians at least have the tool citizens need to either recall elected officials (I’m guessing that includes the judges) or to change their Constitution, and they have shown a propensity to use, and sometimes over-use, it. It’s called Initiative and Referendum (I&R). And I believe a recall provision is already a part of the California Constitution.
 
Don’t you wish Alabama had both I&R and a recall provision in its Constitution?

]]> By: Scott Allan http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1422 Scott Allan Sun, 18 May 2008 14:19:31 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1422 <p>Julie, The only recourse CA has is a state Constituional Amendment or a recall.   I can't see either one succeeding in that environment.  The majority spoke its will and the CA Supreme Court overrode it knowing that any recourse would be so difficult that it could never happen. I wish there wasn't so much apathy by the silent majority.  If there wasn't, we wouldn't have a Congress with a 26% approval rating.</p> Julie,
The only recourse CA has is a state Constituional Amendment or a recall.   I can’t see either one succeeding in that environment.  The majority spoke its will and the CA Supreme Court overrode it knowing that any recourse would be so difficult that it could never happen.

I wish there wasn’t so much apathy by the silent majority.  If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t have a Congress with a 26% approval rating.

]]> By: Scott Allan http://www.scottallan.com/2008/05/coming-soon-to-a-state-near-you.html#comment-1421 Scott Allan Sun, 18 May 2008 14:12:42 +0000 http://www.scottallan.com/?p=713#comment-1421 <p>Hi Silke, Thanks for visiting!  If the state has such a compelling interest, then there should be laws to support that.  If states were to pass such a law, I would not have an argument, but for activist judges to create such a law by themselves, they are imposing their view (and yours) of how society should be constructed over the will of the people.  The people have a right to decide upon the fabric of their society, not just a few elitist "intellectuals". I never made a moral equivalent argument between gay marriage, and polygamy.  Despite the absurdity of some of my examples (which did not include incest or pedophilia by the way) they demonstrate a slippery slope.   50 years ago gay marriage would have seemed to have been an absurd comparison to traditional marriage.  However, if you are going to argue against the moral equivalence of polygamy vs. gay marriage then you open yourself up to the question of which is better for society, traditional marriage or gay marriage and which makes a stronger family unit.  It would seem that you would believe that both family units are equally strong and  beneficial for society, but at the moment most of the country does not agree with that.   If polygamist sympathizers were appointed to the Supreme Court and in their estimation multiple spouses would produce an equally loving home for families, do they have a right to overturn all the laws on the books prohibiting such a practice? My entire argument is not specifically targeting the merits of gay marriage but instead the role of the judiciary in our society.  I worry about the abuse of power from people who feel they know better than everyone else. </p> Hi Silke,

Thanks for visiting!  If the state has such a compelling interest, then there should be laws to support that.  If states were to pass such a law, I would not have an argument, but for activist judges to create such a law by themselves, they are imposing their view (and yours) of how society should be constructed over the will of the people.  The people have a right to decide upon the fabric of their society, not just a few elitist “intellectuals”.

I never made a moral equivalent argument between gay marriage, and polygamy.  Despite the absurdity of some of my examples (which did not include incest or pedophilia by the way) they demonstrate a slippery slope.   50 years ago gay marriage would have seemed to have been an absurd comparison to traditional marriage.  However, if you are going to argue against the moral equivalence of polygamy vs. gay marriage then you open yourself up to the question of which is better for society, traditional marriage or gay marriage and which makes a stronger family unit.  It would seem that you would believe that both family units are equally strong and  beneficial for society, but at the moment most of the country does not agree with that.   If polygamist sympathizers were appointed to the Supreme Court and in their estimation multiple spouses would produce an equally loving home for families, do they have a right to overturn all the laws on the books prohibiting such a practice?

My entire argument is not specifically targeting the merits of gay marriage but instead the role of the judiciary in our society.  I worry about the abuse of power from people who feel they know better than everyone else. 

]]>