One Judge vs 7 million votes

SteamWake · 08-05-10, 11:38 AM

Judge overturns the voted on and rejected prposition 8 in california.

Personally I dont mind gay marrage but this is tyranny.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...OR3D.DTL&tsp=1

ETR3(SS) · 08-05-10, 11:54 AM

The whole topic is really moot. On the one hand it went to a public vote, and the public voted to enact Prop 8. I'm not sure where a Judge gets the legal authority to overrule voters. But on the other hand this shouldn't even be an issue at all because no level or branch of government should define what marriage is or isn't. What threat is gay marriage to them? If you treat gays and lesbians like any other citizen there won't be a problem at all.

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 12:44 PM

You can't vote something into law that violates the Constitutional rights of other people, no matter how big a majority you have. Those rights are guaranteed to every citizen and neither the state nor a majority vote of its residents can take them away.

The judge ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and, if it is, then no amount of voter support for it can justify it being on the books. That's not tyranny, that's how things are supposed to work.

Oh, hey, I know, let's get 7 million people to vote in favor of bringing slavery back and repealing womens' suffrage. It's okay because that many people couldn't possibly be wrong and it's perfectly fine to let an already privileged majority decide which rights they'll allow everybody else to have.

razark · 08-05-10, 12:58 PM

Judicial review != tyranny

UnderseaLcpl · 08-05-10, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krau kaleun

It's okay because that many people couldn't possibly be wrong and it's perfectly fine to let an already privileged majority decide which rights they'll allow everybody else to have.

That's the basic idea.

SteamWake · 08-05-10, 01:13 PM

The tyranny of the majority .. thats a good one

UnderseaLcpl · 08-05-10, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The tyranny of the majority .. thats a good one

Please tell me that's a joke.

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The tyranny of the majority .. thats a good one

The "majority" gets to decide a great many things by voting on them.

However they do not get to decide whether or not someone not included in their "majority" is entitled to the same constitutional rights and protections that everybody else is... even if that "minority" is 1 person and the "majority" is everybody else.

I guess if I could round up a majority of voters and we put forth the proposition that you, personally, be denied certain rights and privileges that we didn't think you deserved, and then voted on it and won, you'd be okay with that. Want to get a driver's license? Buy some property? Ride on our "No Steamwake" buses and eat at our "No Steamwake" restaurants? Vote on overturning our new "No Steamwake" law? Sorry, we took a vote on that and you're not allowed. Majority rules FTW!

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

You can't vote something into law that violates the Constitutional rights of other people, no matter how big a majority you have. Those rights are guaranteed to every citizen and neither the state nor a majority vote of its residents can take them away.

The judge ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and, if it is, then no amount of voter support for it can justify it being on the books. That's not tyranny, that's how things are supposed to work.

Is marriage a right? Also, if this is a civil right and no amount of voter support should apply then why did they hold a vote at all?

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Is marriage a right? Also, if this is a civil right and no amount of voter support should apply then why did they hold a vote at all?

IIRC California passed some law that requires a public referendum on just about everything.

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

IIRC California passed some law that requires a public referendum on just about everything.

Sounds like CA to me!

Lets vote on it and see how you feel about it. Then we will ignore what general concensus shows.

No wonder the state is broke.....

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Is marriage a right?

According to Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, it is. And if you want a preview of how the Supreme Court's gonna rule this one, substitute "sexual orientation" for "racial classification" in their decision on that case back in 1967:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Court

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

UnderseaLcpl · 08-05-10, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Is marriage a right? Also, if this is a civil right and no amount of voter support should apply then why did they hold a vote at all?

Marriage is a neutral and negative right by virtue of the fact that it's a private contract and often part of a religious institution. Granted, the latter is not specifically spelled out anywhere, but it is implied in many court decisions, and it should be spelled out. In addition, it's a key principle in the philosophy of Locke, whose ideas were integral in developing the Constitution.

Like many neutral and negative rights, however, it has a tendency to come under attack by people who want to dictate the nature of others' beliefs and decisions for some reason, often accomplished by supplying an imaginary or unquantifiable threat. Just look at all the contention over First-Amendment rights. Even when something is considered to be a sacrosanct, God-given natural right, whose regulation is strictly forbidden by the supreme law of the land, it gets questioned and even taken away on occassion. Seeing a vote on such an issue is not all surprising.

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Personally I dont mind gay marrage but this is tyranny.

It's the exact opposite. It's overturning tyranny of the majority. You can't vote to nullify someone's constitutional rights just because you have a majority.

krashkart · 08-05-10, 01:28 PM

Quote:

"Those that want to uphold traditional family values are going to be outraged," said Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Family values in the context of Prop 8 (and similar propositions across the nation) needs a firm swat to the behind for being rude and selfish.

Quote:

"The whole nation is watching,

Most of the nation went to work today.

Quote:

and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters."

All that's quaking right now are the Jell-O shots.

The judge did the right thing. Prop 8 represents a movement to deny unalienable rights to American citizens, based on a notion that same-sex marriage runs counter to what is considered by some to be appropriate. The right of 7 million voters, in this case, was the right to fair representation in the court, and they got that much -- and more if you count the fact that they already had a legal right to marry. They can cry all over their pancakes all they like, but justice was served.

So what did they lose? Nothing. But their feelings are hurt and they will complain about it until they get their way. Family values indeed.

08-05-10, 11:38 AM	#1
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	One Judge vs 7 million votes Judge overturns the voted on and rejected prposition 8 in california. Personally I dont mind gay marrage but this is tyranny. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...OR3D.DTL&tsp=1 __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

08-05-10, 11:54 AM	#2
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	The whole topic is really moot. On the one hand it went to a public vote, and the public voted to enact Prop 8. I'm not sure where a Judge gets the legal authority to overrule voters. But on the other hand this shouldn't even be an issue at all because no level or branch of government should define what marriage is or isn't. What threat is gay marriage to them? If you treat gays and lesbians like any other citizen there won't be a problem at all. __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

08-05-10, 12:58 PM	#4
razark Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,731 Downloads: 393 Uploads: 12	Judicial review != tyranny __________________ "Never ask a World War II history buff for a 'final solution' to your problem!"

08-05-10, 01:13 PM	#6
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	The tyranny of the majority .. thats a good one __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

08-05-10, 12:44 PM	#3
frau kaleun Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Skyri--oh who are we kidding, I'm probably at Lowe's. Again. Posts: 12,706 Downloads: 168 Uploads: 0	You can't vote something into law that violates the Constitutional rights of other people, no matter how big a majority you have. Those rights are guaranteed to every citizen and neither the state nor a majority vote of its residents can take them away. The judge ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and, if it is, then no amount of voter support for it can justify it being on the books. That's not tyranny, that's how things are supposed to work. Oh, hey, I know, let's get 7 million people to vote in favor of bringing slavery back and repealing womens' suffrage. It's okay because that many people couldn't possibly be wrong and it's perfectly fine to let an already privileged majority decide which rights they'll allow everybody else to have.