Wage War On Prop. 8 At The Ballots, Not In Court - Lawrence Lessig

[brandon80238]

I think it's hilarious when heterosexuals try to say that marriage is about procreation... I guess you better not allow marriages for couples who are unwilling/ unable to procreate. Get your head out of the ground. Whether you like it or not gay people will be allowed to marry some day in all 50 states. Love and equallity will win.

[sklanger]

How? By forcing people to have fertility tests? That would be unconstitutional and impractical. The fact that the law draws practical lines that may not perfectly delineate the fertile/infertile distinction doesn't mean that marriage is any less about procreation. It just means the law draws imprecise lines for reasons of practicality.

And the Supreme Court itself has linked marriage to procreation. See Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma. Is the Supreme Court hilarious too? :)

[budddy23]

Go catch a bullet, all of your post are out of your ass. Nobody gets you at all, you're a power unto yourself. As well as your interpertations. Jesus, get a clue about the issue.

[sklanger]

Wow, do you always wish death on people you disagree with? How tolerant! Look, I know you're angry and all but you need to get a clue yourself. Start with the cases I cited.

[budddy23]

All of the cases you cite, are in light of mob rule.You constantly construe that somehow mob rule is the highest authority.Deomocracy should be understood in its proper context,that the majority rule without responsible government, makes it possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the tyranny of the majority. This is one reason why we have a democratic-republic,to uphold and protect inalienable rights, such as civil liberties and civil rights.The power resides in the Constitution.

[sklanger]

What you call mob rule I call democracy. And it isn't really mob rule, since it passed judicial and constitutional scrutiny in the courts. Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't make it mob law. The Constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court has routinely linked marriage to procreation -- something gay "marriage" can't yield by biological default.

Since gay marriage is not a federal constitutional right, not recognizing it is totally cool.

[budddy23]

[B]ecause of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

[budddy23]

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise now emphatically rejected by this state  that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from (cont)

[budddy23]

and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

- Chief Justice Ronald M. George

[sklanger]

You're quoting a state court judge on state law. I suggest you learn the difference between state and federal law.

[budddy23]

Lol what a dumbass, don't you see that a state judge is giving respect to federal law as well as state laws.

See what ya wanna see.. as usual. This is what we call a parallel. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and learn to parallel it with reality.

[sklanger]

@budddy23 Except the judge was talking about the California statute being unconstitutional under state law -- i.e., the California constitution, not federal law. There is no "parallel," because the standard of review under federal law (rational basis) is different from the standard of review under state law (heightened scrutiny).

The reality is that your head is up your ass, with no possibility of extraction.

[budddy23]

Do always wish death upon the freedom of people you disagree with? Look I know you're an intolerant asshole, but what is this to you personally? Why do you personally not want gay marriage? And save me the jaded propaganda of how you think you understand equality and the U.S. Government. What personal moral issue do you have with it?

[sklanger]

You're free to marry a person of the opposite sex -- the same freedom everyone else has. Try again.

And I think the intolerant asshole is you, since you wish death on those who disagree with you. Maybe it's time you treat your anger issues? :)

And I don't have any personal moral issues with gay marriage. I just think subsidizing it is an inefficient use of state resources, and that it raises a host of negative externalities. See, e.g., _An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws_.

[budddy23]

Are you ridiculous? Mandating laws where gay people can only marry people whom the majority of society picks for them? This is about equality, Civil Rights and the Seperation of Church and State on some levels. Those are federal constitutional rights. Equality, freedom and justice for all is what our U.S. Constitution is founded on, you cannot have that with mob rule, it is logically impossible.

Are you really going to try outweigh fundamental rights with economic benefits?

[sklanger]

Except gay marriage is not a "fundamental" right under federal law, and never has been. No federal court has held that gay marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Federal Constitution. In fact, they've held the opposite.

[davidls11]

The California Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling in the Prop 8/ Marriage Equality case and decide whether a bare majority of voters can strip a minority group of their basic civil rights. Hopefully, they'll decide to overturn it.

[nnjhansen]

Where do you get that marrying someone of the same sex is a basic civil right?

Where in our law, history, custom, or tradition did such a basic right come from?

[sidecar771]

@nnjhansenAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. i.e. the constitution

[nnjhansen]

@sidecar771 Thank you you for restating the 14th Amendment but what is your point? The question is how is that applicable to this question.

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 So? The Fourteenth Amendment no more guarantees that you can marry a person of the same sex than it guarantees that you can marry your cousin or your bisexual polyamorous partners both at the same time. Otherwise laws against consensual consanguinity, bigamy, polygamists and bigamists would be unconstitutional.

[sidecar771]

@sklanger Grow up you big baby! This is about a personal decision and none of your damn business, nor is it the busines of anyone.

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 Wrong. You're asking for public recognition of gay marriage, that makes it the public's business, not merely a "personal" decision. That distinction between private and public conduct has been extant in the law since at least Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) ("It partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community.").

Learn about it.

[sidecar771]

@sklanger It's basically none of the publics business. Gay people pay the same taxes as everyone else and as such are entitled to all the protections of the law. Half wit hate filled bigots are going to have to get used to this.It is not the prerogative of the state to intervene in the private lives of citizens, basic human rights are "inalienable"...regardless of an antique ruling of an ignoramus.

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 Then don't ask for public recognition if it isn't the public's business. Which is it? Either it's the public's business because you are asking for public recognition of same-sex marriage, or it isn't the public's business and you have no right to demand public recognition.

People who want to marry their cousins "pay the same taxes as everyone else." So they should be allowed to marry their cousins and produce halfwits like you? I don't think so.

[budddy23]

Now really,what is your personal or relgious issue? Were you molested by someone who was gay? And now you want your pound of flesh, what is it?

So you are tiredlessly surfing through the forums to take stabs at gay people, for economic reasons? It sounds like a weak motive, in my opinon. You're saying that the economy will suffer if gay people are allowed to mary? Ok, what if it was more beneficial to our economy not to allow straight people to marry? Would you hold true to that?

[budddy23]

No, what's unconstitutional and unpractical would be reserving marriage to only couples that can physically pro-create. The fact that the law doesn't draw distinct lines means excatly that, that it is less about procreation being a requirement for marriage, and more about leaving that right in the hands of the couple. It is absolutely absurd that a couple that is infertile, should be denied the same right, because they differ anatomically.Law draws impercise lines to protect from discrimination.

[budddy23]

It doesn't draw those lines too percise, because if they are, extremist can force their will upon other people, that is a crazy thought. Reasons of factional practicality don't dictate, equality does, that is why those lines are imprecise, to include everyone. And that is why ignorant and discriminate people want them drawn so precise, as to favor an apathetic, unequal and discriminate agenda. So which gay priest raped you again? I know you're angry about that, but don't blame the gays for it.

[budddy23]

You couldn't prove it by law, by biology or even by the absurd claim of economics, that discrimination is okay. So what other reasons do you have left, I can only think of reasons of relgious, personal or moral clashes.

I understand you trying to hide your discriminate feelings behind these failed arguments, being the coward you are.

But you would make more sense,if you would just explain your personal reasons, why you feel that way you do? Because you aren't being rational.

[sklanger]

LOL. You're insane. I get that you're asshurt because someone dares to disagree with you on gay marriage, but your overreaction just tells me that you're all emo about it, and not rational.

And no, I'm not religious at all. I'm a full-fledged atheist. Most of my friends happen to be gay too. Sorry to disappoint you.

Maybe it's time you accept that people can disagree with you, instead of getting all Freudian and angry that they do. You can either deal with it, or get over yourself. :)

[SporeConvergence]

That you have gay friends and don't want them to have rights gives us a couple of options to consider. One option is that you and your gay friends are psychopaths that wouldn't mind taking away each others rights. Another option is that you are a liar.

If you are not against rights for gays because of dogmatic reasons, then give us a good reason to be against it.

Your only argument so far has been to make baseless accusations (ad hominem, look it up) against proponents of expanding freedoms.

[budddy23]

Excatly - Sklanger is unrational

[sklanger]

@SporeConvergence So I'm a liar or a psychopath? Here's a third option: you're a moron.

Marriage is meant to encourage reproduction and child rearing to take place within the socially preferred paradigm of two biological parents. The biological reality is that two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other; if a gay person wants to reproduce, he or she has to do so with third party of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married, defeating its rationale. Dig, simpleton?

[budddy23]

I understand you can't argue the facts out of a paper bag, but making ad hominem attacks like SporeConvergence says, just demonstrates once again another one of your red herings.

Silly sklanger why would I be dissapointed? You have no friends. Let alone gay friends. Maybe it's time you accept that your ad hominem attacks are nothing but excuses, for your lack of civility, rationality, itelligence and common sense. We understand you are an embarassment to society and starved for attention.

[davidmesaaz]

The core of the debate is can you sue a some one for discrimination because of their religious beliefs.Should organizations that oppose gay rights have legal tax rights?

[Isabella8466]

Marriage has four distinct meanings and uses, cultural, social, legal, religious.

Our family is one of many who has a long history of secular marriage.

Prop 8 will be overturned on Constitutional grounds.

[sojoyful]

This is not about rights. It is about a word. Words have meaning.

Marriage is the very symbol of heterosexuality the embodiment of the undeniable biological facts of procreation. Twinning brides and twinning grooms does not change that. It makes them clones of heteros and does not celebrate their difference it put's them back in the closet. Yet this time they impose it on themselves.

[kbr7171]

Did I hear this guy correctly? Is he comparing ending copy right extensions to trust busting? That is a very flawed thesis.

[underneaththeveneer]

What about Log Cabin REPUBLICANS?

[OneWorldOneLife]

They should be ashamed of themselves!

[underneaththeveneer]

And why would that be?

[OneWorldOneLife]

Because the Republican Party continues to be homophobic to the point of abusively violating human rights! If you don't want to share your wealth with the less fortunate than why don't you start a libertarian third party that is respectful of lgbtq-identified individuals!

[OneWorldOneLife]

*then

[underneaththeveneer]

Because it wouldn't hold the same sway as one of the two major parties do. Log Cabin Republicans aim at changing the Republican Party from within. The Bush administration had openly gay appointed officials. There was even Mary Cheney! It's sad that some Republicans are homophobic, but then so are some Democrats.

My point is Prof Lessig calls out to Democrats but a bi-partisan effort should probably be encouraged.

[MORECOWB3LL]

Or we could abolish the government.

[OneWorldOneLife]

But good government is a good thing! Only bad/evil government (eg.: Bush) should be abolished. Peace. :)

[MORECOWB3LL]

A peaceful government would be good, but a peaceful government can't exist by definition. Governments necessarily aggressively impose taxation (theft) and arbitrary regulation with deadly force on their supposed "subjects", "citizens" or whichever euphemism people would like to use instead of slave.

[OneWorldOneLife]

taxation actually is an efficient method of funding many services we need: like health care, education, and public transit. it is NOT theft. also by democratically electing governments, we all collectively decide how our taxes are spent and which public policies are enacted. call me crazy but i love paying taxes knowing that it pays the bills for those that aren't as lucky as I am (but then again I am Canadian). Peace. :)

[SpeedyBruin]

The professor makes some good points. WE have a long way to go and the legislature is a powerful and promising platform for change. I remain confident that with continued determination we can finally bring about the just and fair treatment of lgbt americans.

[eirefrance]

100% correct, Mr. Lessig. 'Originalism' is just a front for conservative actvist judges forcing through the policies they like, as is evidenced by the many blatantly un-Consitutional decisions the Court has passed with conservative support in the past 15 years.